+watch



  • @Cobaltasaurus started a discussion on +finger.

    Over time, I find myself taking the same attitude towards +watch as I have towards &afinger.

    Both functions generate a lot of false positives, where people expect interactions just because you've +fingered them or just because you've logged in.



  • I think it's handy because a lot of the time people don't notice I'm on when we've scheduled something and that way I can wave at them to see if we're still on. I'm super forgettable. :(

    But I can also see how redonk stalkery it can get.


  • Coder

    With watch, you can opt out entirely. I find this a fair compromise.



  • Depending on how it's coded, you can hide from the stalky type these days -- which is a huge help.

    My secret dream is that some day this will be coded in such a way as to work off of IP rather than name, on a hidden 'avoid' attribute, so it does not reveal alts in the process. Even if they are the alts of someone behaving like a twit.



  • @lock/pagelock me=!*twit


  • Pitcrew

    @Misadventure said:

    @lock/pagelock me=!*twit

    Which does not work for alts until after they've paged something to you. No preemptive striking.



  • Also it's a bit overkill, depending on the behavior.

    I may have no qualms interacting IC/when there's cause with Sally McChattypanties, but I may not want Sally page-bombing me the second I log in with huggy-snuggle crap and whatnot every time I connect, especially if I have only a few minutes to pop in and reply to a job or something and wish to do so without dallying over chatty trivia.


  • Politics

    Again, I find +watch functional, and I use it all the time. On the Reach, folks on your +watch are highlighted when you use +where. This helps me figure out who's on and who's active, and is useful on a game that can have 100+ logins.



  • I use +watch constantly. Its the best way, to me, to check and see if someone I'm either trying to schedule a scene with, or have a scene scheduled with, is online and active.



  • Does anything work on unknown alts? BTW clients can highlight names etc as well, so even without +watch, you can be easily noticed. +watch is far more useful than problematic, especially with the opt-out. You can also set yourself unpageable after +finger'd or logging in if, you know, telling the person to cool it is too hard.



  • @Misadventure

    Does anything work on unknown alts?

    I believe @Surreality is wishing there was a function that would let you, say, +watch/avoid (or whatever) Joe, and the game would not only hide you from Joe but determine who else Joe plays by IP and hide you from their +watch as well, but in such a way that didn't actually tell you who else Joe is.

    Unfortunately IP matching is often really imprecise with the way people use multiple means of connecting, these days. Cell phones, tablets, home computers, work laptops, etc. That's not even getting into people who share IP addresses, even temporarily, whether because they live with or are visiting someone RL or just both happen to be at the same convention and using the same computer room or library or... well, so on and so forth.



  • @Misadventure -- You could arguably code watch to handle unknown alts in the way I described without revealing them in the process: when you do +watch/hidefrom <name> (or whatever one names the command), <name> is added to your list of people you're hiding from that you can see. The actual list the +watch code references, however, can be stored on an attribute that isn't player-visible. This means it's possible to, when adding Sally Chatterbox to your 'hide from' list, have the code also IP check Sally and add her and her alts to the list the code is actually using to hide you -- not your little list of names that you can see. This way, you can hide from a player engaging in annoying player behavior without revealing that player's alts and infringing on their privacy in the process.

    To the best of my knowledge, this code doesn't omit them from the list of connected watched people when it's randomly checked -- it just doesn't alert you directly when they connect or disconnect. Which is no big deal, IMHO.

    +watch isn't overkill. Pagelocking someone for being a minor nuisance in regard to the way they use +watch kinda is.

    TR had a pretty nice setup generally for +watch compared to others I've seen. You could selectively hide from individual charbits with it -- which is helpful. I never was a fan of Shang's 'all or nothing' approach on this one, for instance.


  • Coder

    This is not impossible but is roughly undoable. Multiple people live at the same address and ip addresses move around, or people log in from different locations, the code could play whack a mole for you, but it still can't do what you want,


  • Coder

    Why not code watch so that it works only when you have been allowed to approve someone adding you? Or at least give that option for those that want it?

    +watch Bob
    Bob has opted for approval of watchers. You will be notified if Bob accepts your request.



  • Blimey, you all make things so complicated. I only play on TR, but when I'm being unsociable I just +watch/hide and +watch/per to allow friends or whomever to be aware of my connections. It's worked perfectly fine so far..


  • Tutorialist

    @HelloRaptor said:

    Unfortunately IP matching is often really imprecise with the way people use multiple means of connecting, these days. Cell phones, tablets, home computers, work laptops, etc. That's not even getting into people who share IP addresses, even temporarily, whether because they live with or are visiting someone RL or just both happen to be at the same convention and using the same computer room or library or... well, so on and so forth.

    This is why I think as a matter of game design it would be useful to have people have to register with their first alt, and then either request for alts to be made from staff or have a code that makes them automagically, but tags them to an alt-list that is attached to a "player information object".

    However, I do still remember all the bitching and complaining anyone I ever tried to recruit to LA mush did whenever they found out that they had to register to get a charbit, and didn't like they had to use a command to get an alt.



  • @Cobaltasaurus
    For what it's worth, I think that's an awesome idea.



  • Or you can check and record everyone who is connected from the same IP at the same time, and over time deduce patterns to apply to your hide from +watch even if WHO still works.



  • @Cobaltasaurus

    I had a similar idea but my idea entailed to do it off-mu* and on a browser web app connected to the mu* database.

    Alts are doled out by specific permissions or by specific preemptive barriers.

    This idea I have would also prevent players from losing their alts. This proposed web app console would have a full list of all alts they have and allow them to delete. If not from the web then if they nuke in-game it then reflects this off-mu* master list.


  • Coder

    I think asking people to do anything but opt in to alts is a bad idea. I registered on HM out of fear, HeroMux because it was nice. On Eldritch, we occasionally get people balking about needing an email to get a wiki account, but for us it's just to send the invitation.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to MU Soapbox was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.