Chat room bug?

[Urban Ranger]

How come there is always a user with the name Unregistered?

[Apocalypse]

I'm guessing it happens when an unregistered user clicks on the chat room link.

[Skanky Burns]

Could we disallow unregistered users from entering the chatroom?

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
I'm guessing it happens when an unregistered user clicks on the chat room link.

yes, guests can view the chat room and an Unregistered user will show up in the user list in the forums(for one or many guests viewing the chat room)

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Could we disallow unregistered useres from entering the chatroom?

why?

[Rasbelin]

That means all chatroom users can't be controlled with moderative actions. No, not a good idea. I demand limited chatroom access like before in the old chatroom that required you had logged in and had a user account.

[Skanky Burns]

Accountability - Unregistered users can't be moderated for their actions (as Ras said).
Service - Being in the chatroom takes up server processing time / bandwidth. Why should someone who hasn't even bothered to log in be allowed to reduce the quality of service for the rest of us?
Social value - I join the chat to talk to people I know from their postings on this site. If I wanted to talk to someone I didn't know at all, I'd go somewhere else.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Accountability - Unregistered users can't be moderated for their actions (as Ras said).

which actions? they cant do anything!?!

[Skanky Burns]

Then why let them join at all?

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Then why let them join at all?

to enjoy reading discussions of people like you

[MarkG]

unless you consider reading as an action, in which case you believe that people should be accountable for what they read

[Skanky Burns]

Good luck to them trying to get any enjoyment out of it then.

unless you consider reading as an action, in which case you believe that people should be accountable for what they read

[Rasbelin]

Markos,

you said on the first day when the chatroom was in use that we need a userlist where we could see who's in the chatroom. Well, this change has made the list useless we really can't now who and how many outsiders are really lurking and spying there. It also takes server capacity as the chatroom box has to be refreshed, so that makes the chat more laggy (yeah, very fair for all registered users ).

And when you say they can't do anything, I would underline that thye can lurk and watch we talk. Their access to other rooms can't be restricted (unless you finally implement the privacy functions as you promised) and you can't really have any chats without disturbance then. At least I don't like the idea of having a pack of stalkers that can be kept outside on SPDT General Assembly meetings. I'm not sure what the DG folks think, but I assume they don't like it that much either.

But if this isn't fixed, then no further SPDT General Assembly or The Cooker meetings will be held on Poly as it's not working with all the lurks.

Anyway, what's the primary reason why these lurks should be allowed the chatroom access? Markos, come on, be honest and tell us. At least previously the chatroom access was one of the goodies that you received when you registered on Poly, but apparently that doesn't count. Why not still have the chatroom as a goodie for registered member?

[MarkG]

spying? stalkers? are you sure you're not geting a bit paranoid here?

if you want to have a private chat, then you cant have it in the chat room NOW (that is until i implement the private mode(which now that i think of it will need more work as the archive should also not contain the messages of a room during private mode)) just like you couldnt have it with the old chat room. and you cant have it even if guests are banned from the chat(since you cant currently kick a registered user out of the chat, just prevent him from posting)

i'll do my best to be of service to every visitor of the site, but you should know that i've never accepted any kind of warnings or demands

cheers

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by MarkG
spying? stalkers? are you sure you're not geting a bit paranoid here?

I assume so.

i'll do my best to be of service to every visitor of the site, but you should know that i've never accepted any kind of warnings or demands

Thanks for the update, Markos! No, I'm not going to demand anything, but it would be nice if such private rooms could be possible.

[Kassiopeia]

Er, why on earth would demogamers mind people seeing what they talk there? I mean, open and public relay of information from the government to the people is a cornerstone of a democratic system.

[Rasbelin]

I didn't speak of hiding information, but I more like referred to the nameless and hidden lurkers. Wouldn't it be better if you could see how many persons are really in the chatroom and who they really are? Isn't that also being open and public? At least that would mean everyone would know who's in the chatroom, while you couldn't be incognito.

[Kassiopeia]

Anonimity, like electoral secret, is another cornerstone of democracy (not taking slander etc. into account of course). Why would we want to know how many people are there? I see no logical reason.

Knowing the amount for demographical purpose, as in finding out how many citizens are attending, is a possibility, but as it is we would have to go through the strenous task of noting down the chat attenders (which on it's own would be... questionable at least) and comparing the names to the Citizen Registry.

We have nothing to hide.

[Urban Ranger]

This is not a democracy damn it! Shame on you for not knowing.


Markos,

As far as I can tell, the chat rooom feature is rather CPU intensive. So why not limit the access to registered users? This way, there is more incentive to register. Also, you can have more users on the server without it bombing out.