Telegram Mute (Wishlist)

Telegram Mute // Wishlist

1  |  

fgdh

Apr 27, 1998, 3:55pm
I am sure I will get JP's and Enzo's support on this one ;) I would
really appretiate a way to deny incoming telegrams from certain individuals
or even everybody. there are times I log on and cannot even say two words
to the ppl I am trying to meet because I am getting tele'd like crazy. And
as a GK or PK sometimes you can get harrased to no end by someone who felt
"wronged"

technozeus

Apr 28, 1998, 1:46am
I was thinking about that today, and it occurred to me that tourists show up
on demographics (how many people are in a world) but not on anyone's contact
list. Although I don't know what's involved in adding it to the program,
it seams to me that a citizen should be able to have the same privacy when
they choose without having to resort to entering as a tourist. Perhaps it
would be possible to add a "busy" mode in which all telegrams would still be
delivered as usual, but no notification would be issued in the chat dialog,
and the checkmark indicating that the user is on-line (in AW) would be
replaced by some other icon to let people know that their telegram may not
be seen right away.

Another issue that I believe has not been addressed is recieving telegrams
when you are not at your own computer. When you change to a given citizen
ID, it sould be possible at that time... "before" you are actually signed in
under the new ID, to click some checkbox to let AW know that you would like
not to recieve telegrams during that session. That way, telegrams would be
held for you until you are back on your own computer where you can choose to
keep them for a while if you want. I realize that this could cause a
problem if people checked that box all the time on their own computer and
just let the AW server store their telegrams forever, but perhaps it could
be set so that this box would "always" be unchecked by default, and "only"
show up when you actually "change" users so that people would have to go out
of their way to use the feature on their own computer.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

builderz

Apr 28, 1998, 11:59pm
I also agree to this. If there is a way to make it so you can not be seen in
others worlds, then there can be a way to now show telegrams at a certain point
in time. I personally get bogged down with them when I start Active Worlds,
and when people see me on AW, even more ppl send them to me while I am reading
my old ones. I usually log into AW to check something out and then surf the
Web for awhile in Netscape (not the "AW Web Window" ;-), getting, yet again,
more telegrams (forgetting to close down AW). Maybe even have it send an
automated response saying, "User is currently busy. Please try at another
time." Please, add this much-wanted feature, for the users' sake!

[View Quote] > I am sure I will get JP's and Enzo's support on this one ;) I would
> really appretiate a way to deny incoming telegrams from certain individuals
> or even everybody. there are times I log on and cannot even say two words
> to the ppl I am trying to meet because I am getting tele'd like crazy. And
> as a GK or PK sometimes you can get harrased to no end by someone who felt
> "wronged"

joadsghost@hotmail.com (sidris)

May 1, 1998, 4:16am
I know this has been brought to everyone's attention and I'm sorry to re-
state and re-hash but PLEASE! For the sake of everyone's sanity, please
give us a way to turn off the telegrams, be "invisible", ignore some/all
telegrams, something! No wonder everyone's been so crabby lately. It's
just downright frustrating trying to focus on a project with a dozen
people screaming for your attention. Puts some of us in rather
precarious positions having to make excuses for not responding. I have
dreams now that I'm being stalked by a big green check mark!

In article <01bd7204$f5634040$845d07ce at jremtema>, jdal at iserv.net says...
> I am sure I will get JP's and Enzo's support on this one ;) I would
> really appretiate a way to deny incoming telegrams from certain individuals
> or even everybody. there are times I log on and cannot even say two words
> to the ppl I am trying to meet because I am getting tele'd like crazy. And
> as a GK or PK sometimes you can get harrased to no end by someone who felt
> "wronged"
>
>

lara

May 1, 1998, 9:17am
I 'd love to have an invisible (no green checkmark) option;
preferably one that remained set the way one left it upon shutting down
the browser. There are many times I'd like to be able to build quietly
for awhile until I choose to have that dreaded green checkmark appear.

Has anyone else noticed that almost everyone turns off
"Show what world I'm in"? I'll bet there are quite a few of us who
would very much welcome a total privacy option.

[View Quote] > I know this has been brought to everyone's attention and I'm sorry to re-
> state and re-hash but PLEASE! For the sake of everyone's sanity, please
> give us a way to turn off the telegrams, be "invisible", ignore some/all
> telegrams, something! <snip>

eep²

May 1, 1998, 9:19am
<gasp!> Lara posted in the newsgroups!&(*# <faint>

[View Quote] > I 'd love to have an invisible (no green checkmark) option;
> preferably one that remained set the way one left it upon shutting down
> the browser. There are many times I'd like to be able to build quietly
> for awhile until I choose to have that dreaded green checkmark appear.
>
> Has anyone else noticed that almost everyone turns off
> "Show what world I'm in"? I'll bet there are quite a few of us who
> would very much welcome a total privacy option.

lara

May 1, 1998, 9:26am
heh..hoped to sneak in and out quietly...privacy was that important to me!
Might have known I couldn't escape your eagle eye (darn, you were fast!) :)

[View Quote] > <gasp!> Lara posted in the newsgroups!&(*# <faint>
>
[View Quote]

technozeus

May 1, 1998, 6:01pm
Actually, that's one thing that worries me about an invisible option... if
everyone chooses to use it at once, the contact list becomes pretty much a
waste of space and programming. I'm not saying that such an option
shouldn't exist... just that there are things about it which concern me.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

lara

May 1, 1998, 7:37pm
I understand your concern. It doesn't seem to be a problem, though, with ICQ.

I'd think those who wish to take a break from building and chat for awhile
would turn it back on when ready. Those who use AW primarily to visit
and chat would simply keep it on.

If a complete privacy option were available, it would also be nice to be
able to select/deselect people on your contact list that you were willing to
let
see your name checkmarked at any given time. But if that gets too
complicated,
I'd opt for, "Please, let us have a complete privacy option now....work out
any
fancier details in the future".

[View Quote] > Actually, that's one thing that worries me about an invisible option... if
> everyone chooses to use it at once, the contact list becomes pretty much a
> waste of space and programming. I'm not saying that such an option
> shouldn't exist... just that there are things about it which concern me.
>
> TechnoZeus
>
[View Quote]

technozeus

May 1, 1998, 9:01pm
Very good point.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

princess tia

May 7, 1998, 8:35am
Telegram bombing has become a frequently used tactic to harrass others. There
should be
a way to refuse telegrams from such dweebs :)

PT

[View Quote] > I am sure I will get JP's and Enzo's support on this one ;) I would
> really appretiate a way to deny incoming telegrams from certain individuals
> or even everybody. there are times I log on and cannot even say two words
> to the ppl I am trying to meet because I am getting tele'd like crazy. And
> as a GK or PK sometimes you can get harrased to no end by someone who felt
> "wronged"

grover

May 7, 1998, 10:46pm
and an "away" mode... man, i can't count the number of times I come back to the
compuer and see 8 messages from someone, sent 30 seconds apart, all asking "why
don't you answer, dammit!" and end with "and f*ck you too, for ignoring me!"


grover

you'd think Lucrezia would be more polite <g>
[View Quote] > The ubiquitous green checkmark haunts my dreams.
> For sanity's sake, give us a way to turn it off, dammit!
>
> In article <35518f17.0 at sundev>, Princess_tia at ~hotmail.com says...



--
_______________________________________________________________
http://www.grovers.com/ ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-.__
steve at grovers.com `6_ 6 ) `-. ( ). `-.__.`)
steve at synergycorp.com (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-'
Custom Objects and Avatars! _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,'
___________________________(il),-'' (li),' ((!.-'__________

facter

May 7, 1998, 11:19pm
yeah, im totally sick of that too. People think your being rude . ..
it;s like the time I fell asleep whilst in AW> . woke upa few hours
alter to find all sorts of telegrams saying "why aint you answerin" . .
there were heaps of them . . . awy in telegrams please. . . .

FAc.

> and an "away" mode... man, i can't count the number of times I come
> back to the
> compuer and see 8 messages from someone, sent 30 seconds apart, all
> asking "why
> don't you answer, dammit!" and end with "and f*ck you too, for
> ignoring me!"
>
> grover
>
> you'd think Lucrezia would be more polite <g>
[View Quote]

lucrezia borgia

May 7, 1998, 11:31pm
*big tearful blues*... well I know you are ignoring me grover... I just know
it...


[View Quote]

aduval@neteze.com

May 8, 1998, 9:46am
The ubiquitous green checkmark haunts my dreams.
For sanity's sake, give us a way to turn it off, dammit!

In article <35518f17.0 at sundev>, Princess_tia at ~hotmail.com says...
> Telegram bombing has become a frequently used tactic to harrass others. There
> should be
> a way to refuse telegrams from such dweebs :)
>
> PT
>
[View Quote]

technozeus

May 11, 1998, 5:57pm
An "auto away" mode would be nice also... when you haven't done "anything"
in AW for several minutes, it should assume you are "away" unless you have
it set not to. Perhaps a more bold checkmark (or doubled up one or
something) for "recently active" and a lighter (thinner, less obtrusive)
checkmark if you are in AW but have not moved, talked, or clicked on
anything in a while.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

technozeus

May 11, 1998, 8:39pm
Now that I think about it.... It would be nice to be able to set which types
of actions would count as being "active" so that, for example, if you walk
past your computer and happen to notice a telegram waiting, you might be
able to answer it without disturbing the auto away mode.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

marvin

Jun 12, 1998, 1:30am
If you don't want to recieve telegrams when you are online in AW, or not
have a load of them dumped on you when you first log into AW, then you
need a "Refuse Telegram" setting. The downside is no one would be able
to send you a telegram as long as your browser was set to disable them
(just like disabling join). You can't expect the servers to store a load
of old telegrams for you until you are ready to see if you have one. Too
many people would forget and leave the setting set to off. Too many
people that were popular would abuse the feature. The servers would fill
with unwanted stored telegrams.

So if you got it, you would have to decide, no telegrams at all or give
em to me now!

Later

zer0


[View Quote]

raven shadow

Jun 12, 1998, 11:33am
I think it's better the way ICQ handles it . If you're "Not Available" , you
still get the message , you're just not told
about it until you look for it . And the sender is warned of your status ...
Some sort of auto-response from the server , like "Communication Officer:
Your Telegram has been recieved , but user is not available to respond right
now "

[View Quote]

john viper

Apr 1, 2000, 4:09am
I tell ya what would be cool...

It seems everyone wants in AW exactly what ICQ has. Also we are getting a
new version of AW here soon and continue to push the due date back by
wanting more stuff. So, I had an idea. What if Roland somehow made a
plugin for ICQ that would replace the AW contact list, and AWCOM and
Miribilis could make some kind of agreemenenenenenenenen *yaaaawwwwwwwwn*
agreement or sumfinnnn *yaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn* *looks at time* Well
that explains that... l8r yall

-John VIper

[View Quote]

agent1

Apr 1, 2000, 12:03pm
Not really... Roland isn't going to add anything else to the code he's already got unless it's a bug fix or something like that. No
more features will be added to AW3.0

-Agent1


> Also we are getting a new version of AW here soon and continue to push the due date back by
> wanting more stuff

1  |  
Awportals.com is a privately held community resource website dedicated to Active Worlds.
Copyright (c) Mark Randall 2006 - 2021. All Rights Reserved.
Awportals.com   ·   ProLibraries Live   ·   Twitter   ·   LinkedIn