1  2  |   Order by index

Aug 24, 2002, 5:34am

In order to keep people from using telegrams as a chat
replacement, there should be an limit to send not more
than 1 telegram to the same person within 5 minutes
or telegram delivery should always be delayed for 5
minutes.

When a new one comes in every 10 seconds, the red
telegram messages get so annoying and you cannot read
the chat text anymore because it constantly scrolls up.
This forces you to block all telegrams if you want to
continue chat and that makes telegrams quite useless.

Aug 24, 2002, 6:01am

Oh no, I couldn't accept that. I rarely chat with people in person, but
often do both in some circumstances. a 5 minute(or any) delay would be
completely unreasonable. As it is, not all grams make it to their
destination.

[View Quote]

Aug 24, 2002, 7:47am

Sigh, maybe an option at least to disable the delegram message
and hilite the telegram icon instead, that would already help
a lot.


[View Quote]

Aug 24, 2002, 9:53am

I completely dissagree with you, I often have to use AW Chat, 3 bots, and have 3 or 4 conversations in telegrams at the same time, so I send Tgs about once every 6 - 10 seconds to many people, as for the delay of 5 minutes... When I send a TG and they are online I expect them to get it and I expect them to get it NOW, if you have a problem with it scrolling up simply make your chat screen larger. :)

- Mark

[View Quote]

Aug 24, 2002, 11:04am

I could deal with that. :-)

[View Quote]

Aug 24, 2002, 11:16am

"ananas" <vha at oct31.de> wrote in news:3D673173.6195F1D at oct31.de:

> In order to keep people from using telegrams as a chat
> replacement, there should be an limit to send not more
> than 1 telegram to the same person within 5 minutes
> or telegram delivery should always be delayed for 5
> minutes.

I think an option to have them queued away in the telegrams tab without any
notification would be better :-))

KAH

Aug 24, 2002, 1:35pm

You could edit the message file and deleted the line about the telegram like

61 You have a telegram
would be
61 .

[View Quote]

Aug 24, 2002, 2:43pm

Make a sound which notifies when getting a message and a button that is
flashing red.

[View Quote]

Aug 24, 2002, 3:59pm

This would be a nice feature, although it would definitely need to be an option. Also, an option could be added to simply turn off the Operator's telegram notices if they annoy you during chat.

Now this may not be such a good idea, but instead of simply turning off the Operator's notice, perhaps a new status indicator "busy" should be added. When a user's status is set to this, all telegrams are auto-responded to with a notice of the user's choice, and are stored without the Operator's message in the telegram file.

[View Quote]

Aug 24, 2002, 7:21pm

Then Operator would just be blank... I don't see the upside to this.

-Joe

[View Quote]

Aug 24, 2002, 7:48pm

That's just another way to ignore ppl on purpose :\

[View Quote]

Aug 24, 2002, 8:50pm

People have a right to ignore whom they please while they are online. Some people don't feel like standing around and chatting all day while they are in AW - they'd rather go build in solitude or go visiting different worlds.

People who are busy and don't wish to receive telegram notices have a right to not be bothered, don't you think?

[View Quote]

Aug 24, 2002, 10:41pm

I don't think it's a matter of wanting to ignore someone.I really know
better than that in this instance. It's wanting to be able to chat and/or
build in the place you presently choose to be and respond to telegrams at
the same time in an efficient way that doesn't make both things confusing
and a pain to do. Think about it in terms of someone who doesn't just get an
occasional telegram or a slow-paced flow of them but maybe many of them from
many people at once.imagine what that would do to your AW time. We can't
assume that the person we're telegramming is standing there only talking to
us. It makes sense for the originator of a telegram conversation to realize
that if the receiver wanted to carry on a full conversation with the
sender..he would join him.and if the sender wanted to carry on a lengthy
conversation..not just say "hi" or send some important information, then he
should join the person he's telegramming. What can be more logical? What's
the polite way to handle this without offending one or more people or appear
to ignore comments that you just miss because you can't keep up? Have you
ever been talking/listening on the telephone with one ear, the cell phone on
the other and to 3 members of your family sitting next to you at the table
all at the same time? Well think about doing that all in writing. It doesn't
leave you much time to play with your Legos :-)

[View Quote]

Aug 25, 2002, 2:00am

Just use block like the rest of us, until that person leaves you
alone....simple
[View Quote]

Aug 25, 2002, 2:59am

Not a good option. I blocked all telegrams yesterday and felt
bad about doing that (it wasn't _one_ person) :-/



[View Quote]

Aug 25, 2002, 3:01am

I already have that for all annoying messages :)
But this doesn't remove the notification.


[View Quote]

Aug 25, 2002, 5:04am

or just have an option to turn the alert off?
[View Quote]

Aug 25, 2002, 6:10am

I think it's rude to ignore ppl on purpose, well they can message them back
later after doing their business at least.

[View Quote]

Aug 25, 2002, 7:13am

What if "message them back" takes 100% of your time? That's the point that
neess to be understood. A thing is only rude if you do it purposely to be
rude..not if you do it to avoid trying to do the impossible. Rudeness can go
both ways. But even the other person (aggressive telegrammer(s)) probably
isn't being "rude" on purpose..just unknowingly. There needs to be a
diplomatic way of working around this. That's what the thing was about.
[View Quote]

Aug 25, 2002, 8:48am

That would be handy!

Then you know if someoen is faking you with console messages ^_^

---
D a n

[View Quote]

Aug 25, 2002, 8:47pm

"ncc 72897" <NCC-71854 at USS-Venture.Starfleet.UFP> wrote in
news:3d689107 at server1.Activeworlds.com:

> I think it's rude to ignore ppl on purpose, well they can message them
> back later after doing their business at least.

No, it's not. If they annoy you, ignore them. I was at an event in AWTeen
yesterday and I had to mute a bunch of people because they went completely
nuts and filled the chat with all kinds of weird crap. That's not rude at
all. Communication in AW and in real life are two VERY different things.
Don't go after the same standards in both.

KAH

Aug 26, 2002, 3:30am

It is difficult to have several conversations at the same
time. Two or three still work sometimes, if they don't need
your full attention. But as soon as one telegram needs some
more time to reply, the people who are talking to you inworld
will think you don't listen to them and they will think
you're rude.

While you're trying to answer two or three telegrams, the next
five coming in will scroll the chat text up so you have to
scroll back. While you scroll back more chat and telegrams
come in - and at some point you're just loosing your head,
somehow.

This happened to me not only once, but once I tried to solve
the problem by switching all privacy options on. It worked
but I don't think it is a good solution.
It is especially a bad solution because there seems to be
only one message for telegrams that cannot be delivered.
It doesn't say "Sorry, xxx doesn't accept ANY telegrams"
so some might think you block them individually and think
that you're rude. This should be fixed too, even if it's
some work in the browser and universe source code.


What I try to find is a solution that is not rude and cannot
be understood as rude, that's why I started this thread and
that's where my idea with the delivery delay came from.

The sender of the telegrams cannot see how busy you are with
chat and with other people sending telegrams, so there should
be such a solution.


[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2002, 4:17am

oops, sorry, the delivery delay wasn't my idea ...

[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2002, 6:12am

I guess you're right, it did just seem weird to me because I hardly get more
than one tgram within 1-2 hours.
There are even days without any tgrams at all.

(Flamers: Don't blame it on me, I'm NOT the reason why I don't get tgrammed
much or ignored altogether.)


[View Quote]

Aug 26, 2002, 7:08pm

> (Flamers: Don't blame it on me, I'm NOT the reason why I don't get
tgrammed
> much or ignored altogether.)

lol
hmm whats the reason then :D


[View Quote]

Sep 6, 2002, 7:38pm

Idea:

Make it so it sends ONE You have a telegram

Each time you click a telegram it could be made so that if you do not choose
a telegram from someone else but the last that was shown, it only shows how
long ago the telegram was sent...

5 Min: Hi

etc

[View Quote]

Nov 16, 2002, 10:55am

How about this slight variation on that idea... make it so that instead of only having telegrams "blocked" or "not blocked" we could choose to set our own personal limit of how many telegrams we would be accepted from a person within a specific time period before an automatic message would be sent to them saying no more telegrams beyond the last one they sent will go through until a specified abount of time has elapsed. That way, the person doesn't get their telegram rejected without warning after they took the time to type it.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Nov 16, 2002, 11:43am

"technozeus" <TechnoZeus at techie.com> wrote in
news:3dd6403f at server1.Activeworlds.com:

> How about this slight variation on that idea... make it so that
> instead of only having telegrams "blocked" or "not blocked" we could
> choose to set our own personal limit of how many telegrams we would be
> accepted from a person within a specific time period before an
> automatic message would be sent to them saying no more telegrams
> beyond the last one they sent will go through until a specified abount
> of time has elapsed. That way, the person doesn't get their telegram
> rejected without warning after they took the time to type it.

Please stop replying to posts from August :-))

KAH

Nov 17, 2002, 6:38pm

Why?

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Nov 18, 2002, 10:04pm

because most people cant see the threads anymore so its pointless
[View Quote]

1  2  |   Order by index