PDA

View Full Version : Suggestion: Social groups= private discussion mode?.


Kishijoten
October 25th, 2009, 05:51 PM
So, I've been thinking if there could be such a option.

If a social group can have their discussion(s) set as private and can be only veiwed for members if they want to.
I think that this would be a good idea for Pokecommunity.

so what do you think?

Should member's have the option and be allowed to set their disscusions as in a private mode and be seen only by those members of that group?.

Cello
October 25th, 2009, 06:03 PM
Or they could just go and discuss on MSN in the privacy of their own group chat.

Kishijoten
October 25th, 2009, 06:08 PM
Or they could just go and discuss on MSN in the privacy of their own group chat.

What do members of PC have to discuss that should be kept secret?


That's not the point. I mean. They can have the option to keep their discussions in a private mode so it won't be copied. I mean you never know if there is someone here who is part of another forum and decides to take someone's work here and try to make it there own.
I still stand by saying this is a good idea.

Tyrantrum
October 25th, 2009, 07:56 PM
I kind of like this idea, but there is also the fact that if someone joins that group, they could just copy the 'work' leave the group for good, and just still claim it as their own.

Tyrantrum
October 25th, 2009, 08:39 PM
I'm assuming it's mostly groups that require invites that would want this. Therefore it's really up to the group manager to know who their inviting.
But it's not like the group manager can automatically tell if someone will steal their work. For all they know, they could let anyone in that is completely innocent and has done nothing wrong, but still steals work or ideas.

Ben.
October 26th, 2009, 04:22 AM
I think this would be a good idea,
For people in different time zones.
EG. making a hack, even though to could pm, that would require sending to everyone. and it would clog up the pm inbox.
and everyone could see easly.
So Yes.

øbliteration
October 26th, 2009, 11:31 AM
That
erm...

sounds really social. Privatize groups so wannabe members can't see what goes on there?

Vigilante
October 26th, 2009, 02:20 PM
I think it would be good, cause really whats the point of them? You could discuss it in a thread. But if it is private, you could discuss them amongst only the people you want to.

Kishijoten
October 26th, 2009, 03:54 PM
I think it would be good, cause really whats the point of them? You could discuss it in a thread. But if it is private, you could discuss them amongst only the people you want to.


Yes that is another good point. That's why I suggested this private mode for social groups.

flight
October 26th, 2009, 06:28 PM
I stand no. Here are my reasons:

You have absolutely no idea what you're saying. I had to put this in the kindest manner possible, but really? Tell us exactly why people can't MSN/IM or Twitter about their social groups? I mean, is it that hard? Besides that, you gave no logical explanation as to why social groups should be set to private. As mentioned, it is under the group manager's responsibility of whom he or she lets in the group. If information and whatnot is stolen, it shouldn't have been posted in the first place on a forum, right? Okay then.

So there's really no need for this.

Gummy
October 26th, 2009, 06:56 PM
I don't know, it seems like a plausible idea. Saying that people can just revert to IMing isn't really a valid reason not to have it, because people shouldn't have to download a program or sign up to another site to keep up with what's happening here. I mean, isn't that why we got the VMing system? With the way current Social Groups are, I see them serving no purpose that Pokemon Groups/Other Clubs doesn't.

Kishijoten
October 26th, 2009, 06:58 PM
I stand no. Here are my reasons:

You have absolutely no idea what you're saying. I had to put this in the kindest manner possible, but really? Tell us exactly why people can't MSN/IM or Twitter about their social groups? I mean, is it that hard? Besides that, you gave no logical explanation as to why social groups should be set to private. As mentioned, it is under the group manager's responsibility of whom he or she lets in the group. If information and whatnot is stolen, it shouldn't have been posted in the first place on a forum, right? Okay then.

So there's really no need for this.

I still stand by saying yes to this idea. A private mode for the social groups is optional (read me). But, soon enough I am sure this will be in a good use.
Yes, for the MSN and such idea but, what if they don't have it? -_-...that be pointless. Besides I also think that guests of this forum may be viewing the groups and could take the work still. Because, they might be on another forum and decide to take your social group idea and try to make it like they created it.
Apparently I still think this is a good idea.

flight
October 26th, 2009, 06:59 PM
I don't know, it seems like a plausible idea. Saying that people can just revert to IMing isn't really a valid reason not to have it, because people shouldn't have to download a program or sign up to another site to keep up with what's happening here. I mean, isn't that why we got the VMing system? With the way current Social Groups are, I see them serving no purpose that Pokemon Groups/Other Clubs doesn't.

But think about this: I merely said IMing as a possible choice; with the way social groups are(with 99.999% of them dead) I honestly don't see a point to this, unless they've miraculously been brought back to life somehow.

@Momo: And members can't take work? Make sense already. If you know something you're about to post gets stolen, then don't post it. >>

Gummy
October 26th, 2009, 07:03 PM
I agree that the Social Group system is pretty dead, but the fact of the matter is it's still here, so we might as well put it to use. If we're going to agree that IMing is much better way of getting things done, we might as well do away with the system.

flight
October 26th, 2009, 07:06 PM
I agree that the Social Group system is pretty dead, but the fact of the matter is it's still here, so we might as well put it to use. If we're going to agree that IMing is much better way of getting things done, we might as well do away with the system.

Then again, y'know, if it's dead, what's the point of having it at all? Hardly anybody's bothering with it, and if the system was gone, it wont hurt anybody's feelings. Those who do complain never used it anyway, to put it bluntly.

EDIT: With the exception of about a handful(or even less than that) but still.

Kishijoten
October 26th, 2009, 07:08 PM
I agree that the Social Group system is pretty dead, but the fact of the matter is it's still here, so we might as well put it to use. If we're going to agree that IMing is much better way of getting things done, we might as well do away with the system.


And...what if they down have IM?...that be pointless. I think that a private mode should be allowed even though it can be optional.

flight
October 26th, 2009, 07:17 PM
And...what if they down have IM?...that be pointless. I think that a private mode should be allowed even though it can be optional.

I vouch that there should be a sub/forum for social groups(to at least make it's return). Because here's the thing:

If that forum is dead(this includes if 10,000 threads are made with barely any posts in them), then we have enough evidence to then reach a verdict of no social groups. If it's alive, keep them.

Um, I know people have more than one way of internet communication like a large amount of the time. That's quite a vague question.

Melody
October 27th, 2009, 02:50 AM
I very strongly disagree with this idea. If you want to keep works private, you can blog it and make sure your blog permissions are set so only certain people can see it. You can also use private albums (if it's an image, which most likely it is). Or you can use PMs as well.

Generally, if you post it on a forum, it's public domain, no matter what.

Personally, I also think it'd be very unfair to prevent members who aren't in the group from reading posts there. If you're that afraid of thieves then you shouldn't be posting it on PC at all. Besides, if someone posts it back on PC and claims it's theirs, then they can be infracted for it. (Look in the rules)

I also feel that this would promote more elitism. Sorry, but no, I don't think group leaders should be able to promote cliquey behavior by stopping outsiders from reading their posts. You can always use PM/VM/IM to communicate privately. Heck, you can even blog privately on PC! (if you have blog access)

Cherrim
October 27th, 2009, 01:15 PM
Hang on... I don't even understand what this would be used for. What kind of discussions might you be having that are so important to be kept private?

This is a forum--a community where anyone and everyone should be able to join and jump right into a discussion. Unless there's a really good reason to considering private venues of discussion and the like, I don't think I'd even consider it. (I'm already of the opinion that social groups should be open and not invite-only so...)

.Seth
October 27th, 2009, 02:56 PM
I don't particularly care for this idea. For one, it seems as though you're just trying to make a little area for your little group or you yourself. Can everyone have one? Also, if it's private, what's the point? You post blogs, posts, VM's, etc for people to respond and comment on said blogs, posts, VM's, etc.

Seems a bit pointless that way, don't you think?

Also, Social Groups has a super awesome word everyone can acknowledge. Social, would be that word. Social Groups are meant for people (members, whatever you want to refer to them by) to join in discussions posted by other people on PC. When you take out the Social, it becomes Groups, which basically means:

"Groups of certain members who enjoy or take part in activities that the social group is about.", which can become elitism and, if taken to the "you're not a part of this, get out" level, said feature of PC becomes Cliques, which are bad. Also, cliques are derogatory to PC's purpose, a forum, which is a public place for discussions of all kinds.

Matteron (96)
October 27th, 2009, 05:26 PM
can't you just send pm's to all the group members...-.-

Kishijoten
October 27th, 2009, 05:33 PM
can't you just send pm's to all the group members...-.-


That now would just take up PM space.

flight
October 27th, 2009, 05:57 PM
That now would just take up PM space.

I love how you just ignored Lightning's post after she just inputted her own opinion.

The idea got turned down. Life goes on.

Kishijoten
October 27th, 2009, 06:03 PM
I love how you just ignored Lightning's post after she just inputted her own opinion.

The idea got turned down. Life goes on.


Just for the record I saw Lightning's post with my own two eyes.
But, I am meaning to reply to this one first. I can't just reply all posts at once anyways.

.Seth
October 27th, 2009, 06:06 PM
can't you just send pm's to all the group members...-.-
It's better to post one simple thing than send PM's to every group member, especially when 5 recipients is the limit per PM.

I love how you just ignored Lightning's post after she just inputted her own opinion.
EDIT: Sorry, I'll be patient. Oh by the way, use multi-quote. Works wonders.

Kishijoten
October 27th, 2009, 06:09 PM
It's better to post one simple thing than send PM's to every group member, especially when 5 recipients is the limit per PM.


Not to mention mine as well.


Yes the PM would work supposly... And for your second sentence. "Not to mention mine as well". Like I said. I can't reply to all of your posts at once. be paitent please.

flight
October 27th, 2009, 06:18 PM
Not to be rude, but are you still going to persist with an idea that already got turned down?

Kishijoten
October 28th, 2009, 04:27 AM
Not to be rude, but are you still going to persist with an idea that already got turned down?


You mind as well put a sign on it. Yes I know. I'm just finishing up replying to those posts.

Ben.
October 28th, 2009, 07:29 AM
So no one considered my post?
it seem alot of people are repeating what i said :<