User Channels

[Lithic]

Would it be possible to have the log on messages for user channels? You know the "Lithic has logged onto <the channel that must not be named>" or something?

And could we get a /command that lists the users in that user channel? like /listchan <channelname> for example?

[Vizzini]

Signed

[Cadaia]

/signed

[branmakmuffin]

It's no big deal to me, but why would you want this feature? Perhaps if people had the ability to join it anonymously.

[Vizzini]

It is anyon, there is no list of who is in the channel and your not required to reply, you could lurk all you want muffin.


It's no big deal to me, but why would you want this feature? Perhaps if people had the ability to join it anonymously.

[branmakmuffin]

It is anyon, there is no list of who is in the channel and your not required to reply, you could lurk all you want muffin.
With the list function which the OP is advocating, there should also be an option to join anonymously.

And trust me, "branmakmuffin" is never in a custom channel.

Where are we going to lunch? Pup 'n' Taco?

[CDG]

/signed

[GlassCannon]

It is anyon, there is no list of who is in the channel and your not required to reply, you could lurk all you want muffin.

And this is the way I like it. No "Hey this guy just started watching the channel too", "This guy logged off" "This guy logged on" garbage cluttering up my already merged chat window(Party, Guild, Tells, Userchat1 all in one window)

[Desteria]

I'd love ot at least have a way to get a list fo whos on it nto sur about the log on off spam btu you know i think i;d even like that to though for other perferable with an option to turn it on and off.

[Hordo]

/signed

[HeavenlyCloud]

/signed

[branmakmuffin]

Has anyone advocating for this articulated a reason why? Right now, you could just post "Who's here?" Those who want you to know and are not currently occupied fending off hordes of ravening beasts will answer.

This is more complicated, but on channel creation, there could be an option to set it as "always anon" (like it is now), "optional anon" (joiner marks whether they're anon on joining) and "open" (anon join not possible, with a warning that joiner will not be anonymous).

[Vizzini]

I was thinking Maybe the Table of Round.


With the list function which the OP is advocating, there should also be an option to join anonymously.

And trust me, "branmakmuffin" is never in a custom channel.

Where are we going to lunch? Pup 'n' Taco?

[branmakmuffin]

I was thinking Maybe the Table of Round.
That doesn't say "Southern California" the way Pup 'n' Taco does.

[Kistilan]

Has anyone advocating for this articulated a reason why? Right now, you could just post "Who's here?" Those who want you to know and are not currently occupied fending off hordes of ravening beasts will answer.

This is more complicated, but on channel creation, there could be an option to set it as "always anon" (like it is now), "optional anon" (joiner marks whether they're anon on joining) and "open" (anon join not possible, with a warning that joiner will not be anonymous).

Always Anon is the WHO IS List Feature, which makes sense.

If you have been given a password to join a channel, your friends want to know when you join.

If you're on a Server-Wide Channel (See Argonnessen's HELP Channel), sometimes it's good to know who has logged on so you don't say the WRONG thing because you already have got a butt-hurt thing going on that hasn't gone to the final /squelch, but if you don't know who is listening to you chat you might actually make a social mistake and apologize all you want, some people won't forgive you for what you said in ear shot.

So, I'm all for a WHO JOINED CHANNEL function to display (at user toggle, as with everything else in chat windows) so you can keep track of who you're talking to in specific channels.

/signed

[Aspenor]

/channel list

/signed

[branmakmuffin]

Always Anon is the WHO IS List Feature, which makes sense.

If you have been given a password to join a channel, your friends want to know when you join.

If you're on a Server-Wide Channel (See Argonnessen's HELP Channel), sometimes it's good to know who has logged on so you don't say the WRONG thing because you already have got a butt-hurt thing going on that hasn't gone to the final /squelch, but if you don't know who is listening to you chat you might actually make a social mistake and apologize all you want, some people won't forgive you for what you said in ear shot.

So, I'm all for a WHO JOINED CHANNEL function to display (at user toggle, as with everything else in chat windows) so you can keep track of who you're talking to in specific channels.
I can tell from the title of your post that you don't quite get what I'm driving at.

If there were a function to list who's in a channel, then joiners should have the option to disable revealing their presence. This has nothing to do with the anon checkbox on the Who list, unless you're saying that being anon in the game would also make you anon in user channels (assuming Turbine implemented this list feature).

If someone can't stop themselves from saying bad things about people on open and quasi-open chat channels in the game, they need a spanking.

[Borror0]

Why sjhould there be a need to join a channel as anon? Curious.

[branmakmuffin]

Why sjhould there be a need to join a channel as anon? Curious.
Why should everyone's presence be revealed? I don't think much of Kistilan's answer (although when he wrote "at user toggle," that sounded like he agrees with leaving it up to the joiner as to whether his presence can be revealed), because it almost sounds like it boils down to "I need to know who's on so I can tailor my gossip appropriately."

[Vizzini]

I think the point is, that you don't have to join the channel if you don't want to. No one is forcing you to do so, it's just being stated that for the small population of the people that will use the user channels, we would like the ability to know who we are talking to instead of just the number of people int he channel.

and I don't get the Pup's N' Taco's Reference. Maybe you can elaborate.

[Borror0]

Why should everyone's presence be revealed?

Respect?

If I am to listen two person's discussion, it is hypocrisy of me to veil my presence, don't you think? If I want to stay in the shadow I should just not join the channel.

[Lithic]

Why should everyone's presence be revealed? I don't think much of Kistilan's answer (although when he wrote "at user toggle," that sounded like he agrees with leaving it up to the joiner as to whether his presence can be revealed), because it almost sounds like it boils down to "I need to know who's on so I can tailor my gossip appropriately."

The converse is why SHOULDNT everyone's presence be revealed, considering it is an opt-IN service, rather than an opt-OUT like the who-list? If I create a user channel and go to the trouble of putting a password on it (An ability the devs obviously thought necessary) I would like to make sure that said password doesnt leak to the undesireables, and if such things happen, that I can find out easily and take appropriate steps. If someone wants to lurk annon in a chat chanel, they have general and a miriad of open channels (such as "help" on argo).

Frankly I'm more interested such a command to see whos on without needing every single person to identify themselves every single time someone logs into a rather populous channel. And please don't bother saying every single person will chime in every single time someone logs in and asks "whats up guys." Most are busy zerging their WF monks through the nearest waterworks and will probably forget by the time they get a breather.

Maybe if you ever get into a user channel with more than 1 person in it you might understand.

[Mhykke]

If you're given a password to a channel, there's no argument that that person should have the ability to go anon in that channel. No argument.

[HeavenlyCloud]

If you're given a password to a channel, there's no argument that that person should have the ability to go anon in that channel. No argument.

You stole my argument!

[Kistilan]

I can tell from the title of your post that you don't quite get what I'm driving at.

If there were a function to list who's in a channel, then joiners should have the option to disable revealing their presence. This has nothing to do with the anon checkbox on the Who list, unless you're saying that being anon in the game would also make you anon in user channels (assuming Turbine implemented this list feature).

If someone can't stop themselves from saying bad things about people on open and quasi-open chat channels in the game, they need a spanking.

Actually, bran, I think you didn't read mine correctly.

I absolutely understood what you said, and frankly, I think you have a warped sense of privacy and social interaction with people. I'm not trying to be mean, but common sense and courteousy to your fellow men is not a hard concept.

And then you warped my words a few posts later and said my "toggle" idea was to toggle your anon/visible status in channels?!?! NO!

For the love of DDO, check your incomming text message tab and see all the things you can TOGGLE to be shown on your display such as PMs, Guild Chats, Emotes, Combat Damage, etc etc etc. I was saying you should have the option to see people jump on and off the channel, not that you should have the option to hide yourself. I was commenting on the SPAM FILTER feature of normal chat. In no way do I believe people should be anonymous in any channel they enter, EVER.

You might ask why that feature should be implemented if we were to have the devs actually design chat channels that displayed who entered & left the channel? Well, let's say you go to the server-wide trade channel and you want to read all the trades going on -- it'll be a lot harder to read them with a million notifications of who is coming & going, so the toggle should be the option. However, this would *never* hide you from the users of the channel. Ever.

[Strakeln]

I waiting for the plat farmers to discover the trades channels...

they can spam seven of us at will! :p