Posted June 30, 2011 Had i been forced to use this forum when i originally signed up for this site, I would have NEVER stayed with this game. I would also have a problem with random users being able to message me that i do not interact with on a normal day to day basis. Even now that im used to the way things are around here, I STILL would not want to be required to sign up for the forum to play the game. It took me a year to validate my GPX account on account of me not WANTING to to go the forum to find the answers to the stupid test. Just starting the process and not finishing it prevented me from doing any clicking for that entire year. Not a good sales pitch really. I wouldnt mind seeing some links to ways to connect to other players (we have the forum link.. a chat link would be nice) but i do not want built in pming on the site its self. The forum is enough. Well the whole topic started out simple - being able to directly contact other dc users ON DC and not having to come to the forum to do that. Being able to 'add friends' to contact ON DC to directly go to their scrolls and such instead of having to bookmark everything. Like incorporate a little bit of social networking sites ya know? As of right now, DC is just the users scroll with a link to this forum. Nothing else. So if there was a way to search for your friends scrolls, add them, and if they allow it, IM them. Everything would of course, be optional. Not everyone would have to participate, and people who don't want to be searched for can have their scroll 'private'. No one would receive messages of any kind unless they wanted to. All optional. On facebook you control EVERYTHING. Who adds you, who messages you, who looks at your profile. That's all I was saying. Idk what GPX is, but based on your reactions that's not what I was suggesting. Share this post Link to post
Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) Bad, BAD analogy. On Facebook everything controls you: http://www.facebook.com/policy.php?_fb_noscript=1 List of all the info it collects. http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/07...nition-enabled/ (Facebook changes privacy settings for millions of users - facial recognition is enabled) And how does one actually control who looks at your profile when Google crawls everything and caches it? When people can easily reset their IPs and people can use proxies. When I cannot even NOW keep my scroll private how much easier is it for people to find my scroll when these features are implemented? If you control who 'adds' you then there would be some sort of request system. Which could and would culminate in people randomly spamming you. Unless it was by invite only? Edited June 30, 2011 by DarkEternity Share this post Link to post
Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) *snorts* That is the most un-true statement about Facebook I have ever heard. We control nothing on Facebook unless we know all the secret hidden ways of turning off the many many ways FB collects info. I wouldn't be horribly opposed to a completely-option, opt-IN system of being able to be contacted on-site, but I certainly don't want it compared to the horrible-privacy practices of social networking. And as I explained earlier, being forced to sign up for the forums in order to play the game *would* be a big deal, to the many many users who are not allowed to sign up for forums. Edited June 30, 2011 by Marie19R Share this post Link to post
Posted June 30, 2011 Bad, BAD analogy. On Facebook everything controls you: http://www.facebook.com/policy.php?_fb_noscript=1 List of all the info it collects. http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/07...nition-enabled/ (Facebook changes privacy settings for millions of users - facial recognition is enabled) And how does one actually control who looks at your profile when Google crawls everything and caches it? When people can easily reset their IPs and people can use proxies. When I cannot even NOW keep my scroll private how much easier is it for people to find my scroll when these features are implemented? If you control who 'adds' you then there would be some sort of request system. Which could and would culminate in people randomly spamming you. Unless it was by invite only? *snorts* That is the most un-true statement about Facebook I have ever heard. We control nothing on Facebook unless we know all the secret hidden ways of turning off the many many ways FB collects info. I wouldn't be horribly opposed to a completely-option, opt-IN system of being able to be contacted on-site, but I certainly don't want it compared to the horrible-privacy practices of social networking. And as I explained earlier, being forced to sign up for the forums in order to play the game *would* be a big deal, to the many many users who are not allowed to sign up for forums. Oh my lord. OK. I was just using a social networking site as an example b/c I like some of the features they have available to their users. JEEZE. A lot of people feel the way you guys do about Facebook but so far I have never had a problem. My profile for any social networking site has always been private. I show the info that I want to so any cache out there is fine with me. Let's seriously not think too hard and say well someone who's my friend has a cached copy of my profile who might show it to someone. Well is they're your friend they wouldn't do that. I only add people I know personally. When I get friend requests from people I don't know there is an option I select which will not allow them to add me ever again. People can't message me unless I allow it so in a sense, yes I do control my facebook. Don't read too much into what I said. The topic wasn't about turning this into a sn site, wasn't about having to sign up for forums, (i made a comment saying in my opinion i didn't think it would be a big deal to what someone else started about the forum thing) it was simply about being able to add/view friends to see their scrolls and pm or im them - all optional, all private, all on DC. Share this post Link to post
Posted June 30, 2011 Actually signing into the forums just to play the game would be a big deal since several forums and I'm pretty sure this one too don't allow users under a certain age so create accounts. Share this post Link to post
Posted June 30, 2011 Oh good God, it was just a suggestion. A suggestion based on something that WORKS for another site. Hey, I hate forums as much as the next guy. I'm liking this one a lot less than many, and I'm only still here because I HAVE to be here to be able to trade. DC NEEDS some sort of communication system. Not SHOULD have one...NEEDS one. Let me put this into perspective for you... I have three online friends who play DC. All who I met on different sites. I have to visit THREE different sites that aren't DC to talk to DC users. It seems a little silly to me. Now, just because everyone here on the forums seems to be antisocial doesn't mean everyone who plays is. Share this post Link to post
Posted June 30, 2011 Oh good God, it was just a suggestion. A suggestion based on something that WORKS for another site. Hey, I hate forums as much as the next guy. I'm liking this one a lot less than many, and I'm only still here because I HAVE to be here to be able to trade. DC NEEDS some sort of communication system. Not SHOULD have one...NEEDS one. Let me put this into perspective for you... I have three online friends who play DC. All who I met on different sites. I have to visit THREE different sites that aren't DC to talk to DC users. It seems a little silly to me. Now, just because everyone here on the forums seems to be antisocial doesn't mean everyone who plays is. Ugh thank you, someone who finally understands what I'm saying. So many people were getting off on the wrong foot like about the required forum sign up thing and the facebook thing. Those things weren't the main idea of what I was saying! All I was trying to say is there needs to be a way to communicate with other DC players ON DRAGCAVE.NET! I'm very surprised more people aren't for this... I guess you're right, anti-social much? I'm a very wordy person and you pretty much summed up what I was saying very nicely - short and sweet lol so thank you. Share this post Link to post
Posted June 30, 2011 I have always been all for a PM system of sorts on DragCave.net. The forums are separate, but unfortunately, have been made into a necessity to play this game. While these forums are definitely not as bad as other forums I've been on, I can entirely understand the dislike for joining a different forum entirely. There are very big disadvantages to having a forum as the ONLY means of communication on a site that practically needs communication between members to run. I never understood the opposition to a PM system on the main site. If we can hide our scrolls, then we can hide the PM option. That way, people who are afraid of getting jumped with begging offers can decide only to communicate on the forum. And people who would rather just communicate with a few people without having to join an entirely different site (because that's what this forum is) don't have to. If I remember correctly, the main argument was about people who intercepted/stole AP trades and how they would get attacked through PM if it was on the main site. Now that AP trading is no longer, I don't see why this would be opposed as much. Share this post Link to post
Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) Like I said earlier, I can see this as both useful and a hassle. No matter how it's implemented, unless you have an option to turn it off completely, I can see it being abused. But, everything online has the potential to be abused, and it really becomes a question of "will the good use outweigh the negative issues that arise?". I'd support a link to the chat on the main site, and a PM system depending on how it was worked. Perhaps the PM system could work on a system like this: A user has several options to control what happens to their messaging abilities: 1) User allows ANYBODY to message them (total opt-in to the system) 2) User allows ANYBODY except users on a BLOCK list to message them (partial opt-out of the system) 3) User allows only FRIENDS to message them, as determined by a friends list. (partial opt-in to the system) 4) User disallows all messaging from anybody. (total opt-out of the system) Then, to deal with the friend requests, there would be two options: 1) The user allows ANYBODY to send them a request (total op-in to the system) 2) The user disallows ANYBODY to send them a request, but may send requests to others. (partial op-in to the system) 3) The user disallows ANYBODY to send them requests, and cannot send requests of their own. (total opt-out of the system) In the second option, it would allow the user to still add friends to communicate with, but would prevent them from being spammed with messages. Something like that would allow both for a communication system and the ability of users to opt out of it entirely, opt-in to various features, or opt-in to everything. I'd say the default option in those cases would be either partial opt-in or total opt-out, with a message popping up or something to let you know when said system was implemented so you could change your settings according with your preferences. EDIT: Forgot about the need for a block list. Also, we'd need some sort of report system for people abusing it. Edited June 30, 2011 by KageSora Share this post Link to post
Posted June 30, 2011 Perhaps the PM system could work on a system like this: A user has several options to control what happens to their messaging abilities: 1) User allows ANYBODY to message them (total opt-in to the system) 2) User allows only FRIENDS to message them, as determined by a friends list. (partial opt-in to the system) 3) User disallows all messaging from anybody. (total opt-out of the system) Then, to deal with the friend requests, there would be two options: 1) The user allows ANYBODY to send them a request (total op-in to the system) 2) The user disallows ANYBODY to send them a request, but may send requests to others. (partial op-in to the system) 3) The user disallows ANYBODY to send them requests, and cannot send requests of their own. (total opt-out of the system) Right there. That is a great system. I'd be perfectly fine with a system like that. I'm a person who doesn't mind being contacted, so I'd easily opt-in. Of course, there are some people who'd rather just be left alone. They could opt out of this. I like that thought. o w o Share this post Link to post
Posted June 30, 2011 1) User allows ANYBODY to message them (total opt-in to the system) 2) User allows only FRIENDS to message them, as determined by a friends list. (partial opt-in to the system) 3) User disallows all messaging from anybody. (total opt-out of the system) Don't forget the inverse, partial opt-out. User allows anybody BUT certain blacklisted members to message them. Share this post Link to post
Posted June 30, 2011 I would definitely support some type of on-site messaging system. I'm not sure why people get all ragey about "potential abuse." After all, the PM system here is "potentially abusable" but I don't see anyone arguing that we should get rid of it. As long as it has reasonable controls for blacklisting, etc, I don't see it being a problem. Share this post Link to post
Posted June 30, 2011 I would definitely support some type of on-site messaging system. I'm not sure why people get all ragey about "potential abuse." After all, the PM system here is "potentially abusable" but I don't see anyone arguing that we should get rid of it. As long as it has reasonable controls for blacklisting, etc, I don't see it being a problem. Well, the only difference is that the forums aren't necessary to play the game. However, I say, if we're worrying about new users coming in, we shouldn't. DC is an awesome enough game that for every potential new member who is turned off by one particular feature, there will be many more who don't care. Of course, if we're worrying about members who are already using the site who would leave if such a feature were implemented... that's another story. Share this post Link to post
Posted June 30, 2011 Don't forget the inverse, partial opt-out. User allows anybody BUT certain blacklisted members to message them. Ah, yeah, forgot about that. We'd definitely need a block feature, and we would have to have some kind of reporting system for anybody that is sending inappropriate messages. Share this post Link to post
Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) I agree an onsite personal messaging system would be good. I say 'no thank you' to anything more elaborate. For a forum function, the forum works just fine, and the same goes for the chat (though a link to it wouldn't hurt). The PM system on the forum is OK, but the main problem with that is the obligation to be part of the forum, and as said before that is an issue for younger children who aren't allowed on it. The simpler, the better, with just a few necessary options to be able to personalise how you use it, like Kagesora listed with the addition of the option ~!~ suggested (which is probably the option I would start with). Edited June 30, 2011 by Fengari Share this post Link to post
Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) I'd support a link to the chat on the main site, and a PM system depending on how it was worked. Perhaps the PM system could work on a system like this: A user has several options to control what happens to their messaging abilities: 1) User allows ANYBODY to message them (total opt-in to the system) 2) User allows ANYBODY except users on a BLOCK list to message them (partial opt-out of the system) 3) User allows only FRIENDS to message them, as determined by a friends list. (partial opt-in to the system) 4) User disallows all messaging from anybody. (total opt-out of the system) Then, to deal with the friend requests, there would be two options: 1) The user allows ANYBODY to send them a request (total op-in to the system) 2) The user disallows ANYBODY to send them a request, but may send requests to others. (partial op-in to the system) 3) The user disallows ANYBODY to send them requests, and cannot send requests of their own. (total opt-out of the system) In the second option, it would allow the user to still add friends to communicate with, but would prevent them from being spammed with messages. Something like that would allow both for a communication system and the ability of users to opt out of it entirely, opt-in to various features, or opt-in to everything. I'd say the default option in those cases would be either partial opt-in or total opt-out, with a message popping up or something to let you know when said system was implemented so you could change your settings according with your preferences. I would support a feature like this. Always give a way to opt-out, always. I mean, personally I don't see the need for something like this (maybe because I use the forums so much), but it certainly wouldn't bother me. I don't mind be contacted by people so long as I can block/report them if I want. I'd probably never use it unless someone messaged me, first, though (why would I? I have the forums). Overall, it isn't something I would be against, but it seems like a lot of extra work for TJ with little extra benefit for the users. /shrug Edited June 30, 2011 by FireAngel73 Share this post Link to post
Posted July 1, 2011 Like I said earlier, I can see this as both useful and a hassle. No matter how it's implemented, unless you have an option to turn it off completely, I can see it being abused. But, everything online has the potential to be abused, and it really becomes a question of "will the good use outweigh the negative issues that arise?". I'd support a link to the chat on the main site, and a PM system depending on how it was worked. Perhaps the PM system could work on a system like this: A user has several options to control what happens to their messaging abilities: 1) User allows ANYBODY to message them (total opt-in to the system) 2) User allows ANYBODY except users on a BLOCK list to message them (partial opt-out of the system) 3) User allows only FRIENDS to message them, as determined by a friends list. (partial opt-in to the system) 4) User disallows all messaging from anybody. (total opt-out of the system) Then, to deal with the friend requests, there would be two options: 1) The user allows ANYBODY to send them a request (total op-in to the system) 2) The user disallows ANYBODY to send them a request, but may send requests to others. (partial op-in to the system) 3) The user disallows ANYBODY to send them requests, and cannot send requests of their own. (total opt-out of the system) In the second option, it would allow the user to still add friends to communicate with, but would prevent them from being spammed with messages. Something like that would allow both for a communication system and the ability of users to opt out of it entirely, opt-in to various features, or opt-in to everything. I'd say the default option in those cases would be either partial opt-in or total opt-out, with a message popping up or something to let you know when said system was implemented so you could change your settings according with your preferences. EDIT: Forgot about the need for a block list. Also, we'd need some sort of report system for people abusing it. Kage, you're the best! The perfect presentation of what I had in my mind, (nice, organized, key points presented.) now we must hope for the perfect execution... maybe... possibly Share this post Link to post
Posted July 14, 2011 Kage's suggestion is excellent and I would really like to have that, I also would like to suggest the following: A chatbox/room in the cave where everyone can chat with all the others present. This chatbox should implement an ignore function so people can weed out the obvious trolls for them selves.... transgressions can be punished by banning for X day's/hours/weeks from the chatbox. I have seen something similar work in other online games.... to me, it really enhances the game to be able to interact with other players real time.... Share this post Link to post
Posted July 14, 2011 I think our IRC works perfectly well for real-time interactions. Users are able to create their own channels if they would prefer to meet in private, chat with DC users, conduct tradese and FFAs, and get help for both the IRC itself and the game. There is also a Mibbit widget that allows users without a client to connect. I would say adding a "Chat" link to the navigation would make it unnecessarily cluttered, but cannot think of a place for it to be linked that makes logical sense, unless you feel like adding a line on the Cave and AP about "There appear to be several dragon tenders nearby, perhaps you would like to stop over for a [chat]?" where [chat] is a link to the IRC widget, or a page with the rules and the widget insted in an iframe or somesuch. Share this post Link to post
Posted July 15, 2011 I think our IRC works perfectly well for real-time interactions. Users are able to create their own channels if they would prefer to meet in private, chat with DC users, conduct tradese and FFAs, and get help for both the IRC itself and the game. There is also a Mibbit widget that allows users without a client to connect. I would say adding a "Chat" link to the navigation would make it unnecessarily cluttered, but cannot think of a place for it to be linked that makes logical sense, unless you feel like adding a line on the Cave and AP about "There appear to be several dragon tenders nearby, perhaps you would like to stop over for a [chat]?" where [chat] is a link to the IRC widget, or a page with the rules and the widget insted in an iframe or somesuch. For this, we could just replace the "cave" link with the "chat" link--since clicking on "dragon cave" takes you to the main page, too. It's a bit redundant to have two links taking you to the same place, IMO. Share this post Link to post
Posted July 16, 2011 adding a line on the Cave and AP about "There appear to be several dragon tenders nearby, perhaps you would like to stop over for a [chat]?" where [chat] is a link to the IRC widget, or a page with the rules and the widget insted in an iframe or somesuch. Oooh, that's cute, I like that. x3 Share this post Link to post
Posted July 18, 2011 I think Fizzix's idea is very cute. I would also be quite happy with Kage's program for the PM system, provided the default is set to completely opt-out. Not because I would plan to do such, but because I sympathize with those who would worry about harassment or having to get entangled in unwanted contact in a game which is fine played alone. Regardless I wish there was a better arrangement on site for people to talk. Many people who play the game can't get a forum account due to the age limit or parents disallowing it, and it's somewhat pointless to join the forum just to talk to a couple people if that's your plan, and some people just don't like forums. I know I personally didn't join the forums until well after I started playing, just because I didn't realize how much a communication system could add to the game. It'd be awesome if there was one there, provided you could cut it off completely. Share this post Link to post
Posted July 16, 2013 Hello everyone I was just thinking it would make the game more user friendly if users could send messages to one another Share this post Link to post
Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) Hello everyone I was just thinking it would make the game more user friendly if users could send messages to one another Hi vivek players on the forums can already send messages If you mean sending messages from scroll to scroll (you should make that a bit more clear in the OP) - I think there was a thread about a Pygmy BSA to do exactly that... Goes off to search Edit: I was mistaken about the breed - but a quick search turned up these: Whiptail BSA Skywing BSA If you want something completely different from these two options, you should give a more detailed idea in your first post I hope that helps. Edited July 16, 2013 by herk Share this post Link to post
Posted July 16, 2013 I think they mean like PMs on here. It would be kinda useful if one did not have a forum account. Share this post Link to post
Recommended Posts