1  |   Order by index

Jul 7, 2001, 6:36pm

I just got a great idea for a command- something like activate telegram
name=Brandon

Which would force a telegram window up to go to the named person, a good
idea for putting them on mailbox objects or contact by clicking here signs.

Well your probly thinking them poeple would force tons of telegram windows
up using something like create telegram or bump telegram.... Well the
easiest solution to that is disable that that way it will only work when the
person clicks it, and an extra feature could be multiple recpients or course
with a limit of...id say 5. Also some nice AFK features wouldnt hurt :)

Jul 7, 2001, 7:36pm

One problem: Tourists.
[View Quote]

Jul 8, 2001, 12:18am

umm...then make it a citezin only command lol
[View Quote]

Jul 8, 2001, 12:26am

is it really that hard to read the name of who made the object and telegram them manually?


[View Quote]

Jul 8, 2001, 12:41am

what if you cant right click in the world (i.e.: its disabled)?

[View Quote]

Jul 8, 2001, 2:14am

exactly (which all of my worlds do becuase no public building), plus isnt it
just easier to CLICK once?
[View Quote]

Jul 8, 2001, 6:20am

then get a cracked browser ;-)

i understand your point, but i feel the need to defend myself anyhow:

is it THAT hard to find out who owns a world?

there.. got it out of my system.. i understand a button would be quicker.. and agree.. but i'm too damn stuborn to give in like
that..

[View Quote]

Jul 8, 2001, 12:41pm

> is it THAT hard to find out who owns a world?

Yes. I spent al ong time finding the owner of one world once...

Jul 8, 2001, 5:00pm

i wasn't serious..

[View Quote]

Jul 8, 2001, 5:52pm

I believe (it would be most efficient to) that AW's command parser is completely seperate from the citnum. This means, that every
time we trigger an action, whether it be create, bump or activate, our browser would neccessitate checking our citnum to be sure
that we are allowed to actually send telegrams. This would probably slow down the interface (Correct me if I'm wrong about that) and
potentially allow tourists to send telegrams via cracked browsers.
[View Quote]

Jul 8, 2001, 8:14pm

then in that case nm this whole thread, it was just an idea :)
[View Quote]

Jul 9, 2001, 3:46am

No, it's a good idea, just it needs to be implemented in a bulletproof fashion. Now that I think about it, tourists wouldn't be able
to actually SEND them, just access the telegram window itself, regardless of the state of the browser (cracked or not), the
uniserver would toss out the tele.
[View Quote]

Jul 9, 2001, 7:23pm

lots of events are server-side, aren't they? I mean, if you have a cracked
browser, you can't just go around deleting other ppl's property, right? Make
telegram sending a server-side action, then there you go. If you're not a
cit, it will paste into the chat log "Message from server: Unable to send
telegram; you are not logged in!" or something :)
[View Quote]

Jul 9, 2001, 11:12pm

it IS server side you doof

[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index