Author Topic: Fracturing the Shoutbox (Read 12553 times)

Vekseid · « **on:** July 25, 2009, 03:54:45 pm »

...I'm beginning to think that it's high time I investigated this a lot deeper. On average, a bit over a hundred different people are using it each day, and about 20 an hour. Considering human nature prefers to interact in a number of subgroups of 40-60, this creates... issues. The desire for division and exclusion is natural.

The problem, though, is how to fracture it - that is, in what ways and by what guidelines should our current singular shoutbox overlord become several?

Paradox · « **Reply #1 on:** July 25, 2009, 04:01:26 pm »

Here's one idea I've had for a while--- at the very least, make a shoutbox that is inaccessible to unapproved members. Rudeness and blatant sex would still be verboten, but we could at least have adult conversations without having the ever-present threat of the heavens parting and an angry admin descending with a hot rant about public face on their lips.

Vekseid · « **Reply #2 on:** July 25, 2009, 04:05:27 pm »

Quote from: Paradox on July 25, 2009, 04:01:26 pm

Here's one idea I've had for a while--- at the very least, make a shoutbox that is inaccessible to unapproved members. Rudeness and blatant sex would still be verboten, but we could at least have adult conversations without having the ever-present threat of the heavens parting and an angry admin descending with a hot rant about public face on their lips.

1) We're reworking and clarifying the rules for that.
2) The issue at hand would apply to anything less restrictive than 'donors only'. Swearing or other problems is rarely an issue. Monopolizing the shoutbox is.

Paradox · « **Reply #3 on:** July 25, 2009, 04:07:42 pm »

The chat seems to operate in a similar manner to the IRC; why not allow the creation of multiple rooms? I noticed in the AJAX client that creating private rooms is forbidden.

Vekseid · « **Reply #4 on:** July 25, 2009, 04:10:37 pm »

System resources, mostly. IRC is designed for what it does, Ajax Chat only claims to be.

Dakota · « **Reply #5 on:** July 25, 2009, 04:12:02 pm »

Ajax is pants, Vek I know the VB shout box's can have multiple "channels" would you be able to use a similor code to rework the one we have on here?

Mithlomwen · « **Reply #6 on:** July 25, 2009, 04:28:17 pm »

I like Paradox's idea of having one that's accessible to unapproved members, and having one or two that are for members only so 'adult' things and conversations can go on. Since no one seems to use the HB any more, that might be an option for something like that possibly.

Vekseid · « **Reply #7 on:** July 25, 2009, 04:39:02 pm »

Quote from: Boian on July 25, 2009, 04:12:02 pm

Ajax is pants, Vek I know the VB shout box's can have multiple "channels" would you be able to use a similor code to rework the one we have on here?

Is pants? I'm honestly not aware of any community with Elliquiy's activity using a global shoutbox. Some days see over thirty million MySQL queries.

Anyway, that's what I was referring to. Private channels are just a sort of unknown factor that I'd rather not take if I can avoid it, the server already sees rather high load.

Trieste · « **Reply #8 on:** July 25, 2009, 04:43:50 pm »

Can the groups overlap?

Could have a lords group, a ladies, a liege, a donor box, a Dom box, a sub box, a straight box, a gay box, a bi box, a regional box (separated by time zone or country, doesn't matter), a food box, a game box, a snuggle box, a newbie box, a rant box...

I'm just throwing out ideas; I don't step into the SB much so I don't really know how the groups that frequent it would identify.

Dakota · « **Reply #9 on:** July 25, 2009, 04:48:34 pm »

Quote from: Vekseid on July 25, 2009, 04:39:02 pm

Is pants? I'm honestly not aware of any community with Elliquiy's activity using a global shoutbox. Some days see over thirty million MySQL queries.

Anyway, that's what I was referring to. Private channels are just a sort of unknown factor that I'd rather not take if I can avoid it, the server already sees rather high load.

that makes sense, but then I've always prefered flash to ajax

Kip · « **Reply #10 on:** July 25, 2009, 06:25:53 pm »

Quote from: Trieste on July 25, 2009, 04:43:50 pm

Can the groups overlap?

Could have a lords group, a ladies, a liege, a donor box, a Dom box, a sub box, a straight box, a gay box, a bi box, a regional box (separated by time zone or country, doesn't matter), a food box, a game box, a snuggle box, a newbie box, a rant box...

I'm just throwing out ideas; I don't step into the SB much so I don't really know how the groups that frequent it would identify.

I like the logic of that Trie...

Really though, I don't know - I frequent the SB lots - it's a drawcard for me and I try and mix and match with anyone who is in there. I see groups but quite often they're fluid in my opinion - maybe I contribute to issues without realising it *shrugs*

I've never really heard of groups causing a concern before though but perhaps that's because noones approached me or brought it up publicly like this where I can read it in such a specific clear manner.

Do you have thoughts in mind Veks that you'd consider doable?

Desan · « **Reply #11 on:** July 25, 2009, 06:34:59 pm »

Is there any way to at least make it optional to pm in the sb? that could prove useful if it ends up being only two people who are spamming the SB...

Oniya · « **Reply #12 on:** July 25, 2009, 06:50:06 pm »

Even just putting in the bit where clicking on someone's name brought up their profile would help, I think, since there's the option to send them a PM right there on the profile.

I have seen an awful lot of 'tagging' or 'I'm waiting for a post from ____' messages recently.

Desan · « **Reply #13 on:** July 25, 2009, 06:51:46 pm »

Quote from: Oniya on July 25, 2009, 06:50:06 pm

I have seen an awful lot of 'tagging' or 'I'm waiting for a post from ____' messages recently.

Yea....that needs to be toned down a bit..... in my opinion >.>

Marguerite · « **Reply #14 on:** July 25, 2009, 06:54:12 pm »

While fracturing the shoutbox sounds good in theory, would there be the rise of 'cliques' and their own personal rooms coming around? Would there be someone be appointed to the different rooms and the rules of the first SB apply to those as well? What about those who choose to exclude others from the room because of personal feelings or because they want to keep their group separate from others? If they want to have their own rooms could they not go to the IRC where rooms are made there already?

Not saying it is a bad idea but maybe there could be three SB's:

One for the unapproved, where both unapproved and approved can mingle if he or she likes.
One just for the member of the SB which holds the PG 13 rules
One for adult situations for members in the SB.

Desan · « **Reply #15 on:** July 25, 2009, 07:00:49 pm »

if only there was a way to just slap on IRC onto the SB...because IRC has general area (unapproved/approved), members only where anything can go (the lounge) and of course a cool gaming area (Charm/Power). Also with the ability to send PM's and make rooms.

But yea..Marg you're right..people might start blocking others and what not. But then again, we do have an ignore feature on E, so why can't we have the choice to ignore others if that's a means of avoiding drama? Then again..it may -cause- it too >_>?

Marguerite · « **Reply #16 on:** July 25, 2009, 07:03:23 pm »

Ignoring a person because he or she is someone you cannot get along with is one thing but ignoring someone because he or she does not agree with your thoughts, does not kiss your butt or bend to your will is another. It would be me like ignoring you because you did not say I was pretty or not letting you in unless you bend to my will in the private channel. Here on E, we are able to be adults and handle problems but adding more SB's, can be killer on the site and one's memory if having to load up more than one SB.

Will · « **Reply #17 on:** July 25, 2009, 07:06:57 pm »

I'm not sure it can make the SB more cliquish than it already is. People pop into the SB and get ignored on a regular basis, just because everybody else is talking with their people and don't care to acknowledge them. The only thing I'm worried about is that if there is a (or several) members-only Box(es), will there be anybody left in the public Box besides unapproved people?

Greenthorn · « **Reply #18 on:** July 25, 2009, 07:33:26 pm »

I have not read all of the responses here...but I'm all for a donor only SB in addition to the public one.

Dakota · « **Reply #19 on:** July 25, 2009, 07:40:53 pm »

I'm all for an ignore feature, sometimes its definately needed >.< and there is a way to just slap an irc on the shoutbox but it would require the irc being localy hosted rather than
On an external server

Alexei · « **Reply #20 on:** July 25, 2009, 08:30:16 pm »

Not sure if I agree with a 'Donors Only' thing either.

I get the impression that there are a lot of things that people are frustrated with in the SB. Two of the main ones I've seen is the 'emo' complaint, and the whole 'cliques' complaint. I'm sure the deities have lists as long as your arm of the different complaints, but as a normal schlub member, those are the two main ones *I* see.

Personally, I've always gone in for the K.I.S.S. Method of things. Keep it Simple Stupid. The more we fracture this, the more work it is for the deities and staff to monitor. and the more aggravation it is, for something that is a volunteer position. My other concern is, the more we fracture it, the more that 'clique' feeling comes into play. The whole 'I'm in this clique, they don't like me, so they keep me out...' thing. Kind of similar to what Marg was suggesting.

Having a 'Donors only' box is totally up to the gods and goddesses, but I know that not every approved member in good standing has been able to make a donation.

That's just my two cents. Do with it what you will. *shrugs*

Krysia · « **Reply #21 on:** July 25, 2009, 09:11:42 pm »

Where I was before I came to E had a java chat. Yes I know it would be something more expensive for E then what Veks has already put in. But I know I'd help pay for something like this.

http://digichat.com/

It's simple and the admins can put different rooms. Hell people can even make locked rooms if they felt so inclined to go and cyber their hearts out. (Hot Box Style) There is an ignore feature as well as a private message feature. Might be something to look into... might not be. *tosses the pennies into the wishing well*

Dakota · « **Reply #22 on:** July 25, 2009, 09:18:46 pm »

There as a far cheaper version than that and it can be intergrated directly into the forum i love flash lol

Will · « **Reply #23 on:** July 25, 2009, 09:27:27 pm »

Heh, I don't imagine staff monitoring is going to be an issue, really. We went through that not long ago.

If it gets to a place where staff is needed to constantly monitor it, they'll just take it away.

And like I said before, the SB is already cliquish. Elliquiy itself is cliquish, like any large group of people, so why would the SB can be any different?

I don't even see how splitting the SB into a handful of Boxes would really worsen that.

ShrowdedPoet · « **Reply #24 on:** July 25, 2009, 10:04:25 pm »

What is it with people freakin out over cliques? Do I not know the definition? A clique is a group of people with like interests that hang together right? So what's wrong with them? If you don't have those certain interests of course you wouldn't be in that particular clique. That doesn't mean that the members of the group can't hang with you over a diff subject. I don't see a problem with it and there being a problem with it seems kind of juvenile. So really I don't see anything wrong with fracturing the SB. But it would seem to be more work for staff.