Private messaging

Toby

Kulga More or less exactly what I was thinking 🙂

I don't think we'll support tagging private discussions to start with, but maybe later (and it'll definitely be optional, unlike in esoTalk).

Dominion

Toby I don't think we'll support tagging private discussions to start with, but maybe later (and it'll definitely be optional, unlike in esoTalk).

So private discussions won't be segregated from other content, but won't need to be tagged? Sounds good ... but how do you prevent people from tagging their private discussions?

EDIT: Hmmm ... I just noticed the "Start Private Discussion" button on the second mockup by Kulga and that gives me a clue as to how it might be done. Basically private discussions are handled by an entirely separate routine, which automatically assigns a "Private" tag (or some flag or something equivalent to it) and doesn't offer the opportunity to choose any other tags. Am I warm?

Dominion

Kulga I think it is possible to create a fluid private discussion that works well between just two people.

Sure, but that's sort of missing the point I was trying to make. I don't think "private messaging" is necessarily limited to one-on-one conversation. I've used forum scripts that allow you to invite any number of people to participate in a private conversation.

The difference lies in the relationship between the private content and the non-private content. A private discussion is simply a discussion that is restricted to specific people. Beyond that, it will behave just like other discussions: it will take tags just like any discussion, and it will appear in the list views for those tags together with other (non-private) discussions. Private message style conversations, by contrast, won't be tagged and will never appear in the same list as other non-private content. They get a UI all of their own, which segregates them from the rest of the content.

Kulga The problem here is by solving it top-down or bottom-up. Should discussions be specialized by existing code to satisfy this or create a whole new system just for this?

Yes, that's the thing. The private conversations in esoTalk were (I believe, and @Toby can correct me if I'm wrong) built as a simple way to support private communication by leveraging the existing conversation functionality. That's why you can't invite someone to a private conversation in a channel that they can't see. To get around that issue, you'd have to adjust many aspects of how conversations work. And if you're going to do that much work, well, why not just go all the way and give private communications their own space (i.e., build a segregated private messaging style interface)?

Kulga I think most of your objections are on user interface on esotalk.

I do see see some limitations in how esoTalk does private conversations, and I believe Flarum will be able to do better. I've got ideas about how that system could be improved. But I'd also like to see an extension that provides a more segregated way of handling private conversations. I think such an extension would be very useful in certain situations.

Kulga

Dominion Private message style conversations, by contrast, won't be tagged and will never appear in the same list as other non-private content. They get a UI all of their own, which segregates them from the rest of the content.

Ok. You know I think I agree based on how I made up my example. It's separated but still integrated
But It appears as though Toby will be able to skirt around the tag problem and by having a separate button when under "Private Discussions" It can manage a similar but different messaging system.
Cool.

Toby

Dominion Preventing tags from being applied to private discussions is pretty easy – we just need to add a few lines of code to the Tags extension to make it aware.

EDIT: Pretty much 🙂

Dominion

I see! So then private discussions would be in the "uncategorized" category by default?

How about adding participants to a discussion once it's in progress? That would be a great feature to have.

Allineer

Dominion How about adding participants to a discussion once it's in progress?

How about an users, who was discarded from the private discussion?

And... I think, user, who starts the private discussion, must to have a permissions to moderate its messages.
How about an option to "unprivating" some discussion, when some private discussion becomes public?

Toby

Yes, that'll be doable.

Dominion

Wonderful! That's the one thing my better half has been pestering me about.

Fastidious

Allineer must to have a permissions to moderate it.
How about an option to "unprivating" some discussion, when some private discussion becomes public?

As I see it, private discussion are similar to an email exchange, but in a forum. You can't moderate an email. Just a thought, as I start seeing things getting "thicker." :-)

Kulga

Allineer And... I think, user, who starts the private discussion, must to have a permissions to moderate its messages.
How about an option to "unprivating" some discussion, when some private discussion becomes public?

Who would have the right to disclosing a private to public discussion? The discussion starter? I may write things in a private discussion I wouldn't otherwise. Granted, someone could just copy and paste it anyways.
Unfortunately this adds more complexity.. but perhaps a agreement system? If you posted into a private discussion, you have a say whether you wish for it to be disclosed or to hide your posts, etc.

Allineer

Fastidious yes it is, but... this is a forum, not an email 😉
In the our case, private discussion is just a forum public discussion, but not public. This as I can see it.

I think, it's author must to have a rights to kill, close it and kill/edit it's messages/posts and invite/discard a other members to/from it.

Dominion

I don't really see the need for automatic moderator privileges (specifically editing and deletion privileges); in fact, I think they could lead to a variety of problems, so are probably best avoided.

But I do think it would be useful if users had the ability to exclude people from a private discussion, as well as the ability to "unprivate" the conversation if need be.

Dominion

Kulga Who would have the right to disclosing a private to public discussion? The discussion starter? I may write things in a private discussion I wouldn't otherwise. Granted, someone could just copy and paste it anyways.

I would guess the discussion starter would have that power, yes. After all, it's basically super-sized version of the ability to invite new people into the discussion, which would also belong to the discussion starter.

Generally speaking, it's probably a bad idea to assume that a private discussion will remain secret forever. Even if you are the discussion starter and have no intention of ever disclosing the discussion or inviting new participants, there's always the chance (as you point out) that someone you invited will copy the thing in its entirety and post it elsewhere. And unless private discussions are encrypted (which I believe usually isn't the case) then the admins can read them too ... as can any hacker who manages to get access to the forum database.

So yeah, even in a private discussion, it's best to watch what you say. 😉

Kulga Unfortunately this adds more complexity.. but perhaps a agreement system? If you posted into a private discussion, you have a say whether you wish for it to be disclosed or to hide your posts, etc

This could be done without software intervention ... the discussion starter can just ask everyone to vote. If you can't trust the discussion starter not to do that, then again, it's probably better just to watch what you say.

Cheun

Having a hard time wrapping my head around the thought of unprivating a private message. Does that not destroy the purpose of the PM system?

Or am I missing something..

Dominion

Well, let's say you and a couple friends are planning a new extension for Flarum. You want to hash out the details in private, just so you won't have to deal with everyone and their uncle saying "You should do this!" and "No, don't do it that way, that's stupid!" 'Cause it's hard to make decisions when you're being pulled this way and that.

Then, when you've got a plan you're ready to go public with, you might decide to throw open the conversation so everyone in the forum can see the thought process that went into it.

In some cases, the need for privacy may just be a temporary thing.

henrywright

Where do you draw the line though? I think private messages are a great idea but when does Flarum stop being a forum and become a social network? I mean, you're not far off as it stands. All you'd need is to implement friend connections and an activity stream.

Kulga

henrywright when does Flarum stop being a forum and become a social network? ...
All you'd need is to implement friend connections and an activity stream.

I understand there's feature requests for following a user and the Following Discussions looks a lot like a activity stream.

But... flarum could definitely work as either. I have my own objections to social media websites, but why would a social network be bad in how flarum is set up currently? At the core, it's all about a topic and people responding to that topic.

Dominion

I'm not sure what you mean ... there are certainly more traditional forum scripts that include all those features.

The cool thing about Flarum is that it promises to be flexible enough to accommodate a wide variety of uses.

henrywright

Kulga completely agree. So long as Flarum does the forum part very well (it certainly does already) then the add on features are a bonus. But we shouldn't lose sight of what Flarum aims at, and that's to make world class forum software.

Cheun

Yeah I planned on extending Flarum a great amount and utilizing several API's for my Guilds.

« Previous Page Next Page »