User Categorization and/or Censorship

Here’s the difference: I am not asking for the creation of a mechanism that will enable me to efficiently badmouth another user to 10, 20, or who knows how many others. If I send out dirt to 10 friends and ask them to do the same, I would not think of that as very private. The person being attacked has no opportunity to fact check or counter the accusations. How would that person go about making a case to all the people who were on the distribution list for the charges? I think it’s a mechanism that could be abused to cause considerable harm. If someone wants to do a hatchet job on a user they have a problem with, let them do it one chop at a time.

The whole point of @Wulfenia’s suggestion is that only the author of a comment can see it. So if 10 people would add a negative description to one player, everyone would only be able to see their own, not all 10.
So nobody would know what you think about any player, thus being a “private comment”.

1 Like

Could you please just admit that you made a mistake by overlooking the word “private” in my description instead of insisting that I want to badmouth people when I want to make private flexible descriptions, just as you want to make private inflexible tags?

Or do you just insist that it means “badmouthing” when I use the word “private” and it means “visible only to you” when you use the word “private”? Just because you invented that I want to “send out dirt to 10 friends and ask them to do the same” which happens entirely in your mind? And you even add that “you would not think of that as very private”? Me neither, because it is a complete fabrication by you.

Clarification: I am talking about a record/control panel that I create and no one else has access to. It would enable me to set certain forms of protection from bad guys (or maybe notifications for something related to a buddy or hero).

I think that’s pretty clear.
And the opposing suggestion was to add a text field to players no one else has access to (neither read nor write), because it might be simpler.
So both suggestions would never leak information to other people and are equally private.
Making such information public was never suggested by anyone.

I think having the comment about an irritating user in my ears, I misinterpretted “to attach a short private comment/description to other players, especially friends and ignored players”. Probably as follows…

It says to attach a comment to others. I think of an attachment as something that gets sent to someone. I’ve never seen “attach a comment to someone”. If this was happening in the privacy of your account, it would be a bit redundant to call it private. When you meant a comment is to be attached/linked to one user, you said attach it to a plurality. At first I read Add Private Comments and at the end I came away with the impression that you wanted to be able to send out comments about one user to a group of your associates.

I misread, sorry for misinterpretations arising from that. (If I had been correct my comments would stand.) Next time write with greater precision :wink:

It seems to me your suggestion would require a way to look at the set of users you have attached notes to or it would be impossible to manage. Both ideas require a mechanism to view that subset of users.

The DGS Contact list provides the following:

Actions (send msg, invite,…) | Name | Userid | Rating | System categories | User categories | Notes (text)

System categories are things like "reject messages"
User categories are things from a limited menu like “troll”, “buddy”.
Notes is free form text.

Notes corresponds to your idea.

Adding user categories or tags is an idea that’s been suggested a lot. And it’s a good idea. Maybe the developers will add something like this once the general debugging of v5.0 slows down and new features start getting added in again.

  1. My error was not in overlooking “private”. I explained my error in detail separately.
  2. I rarely claim infallibility and had not had my error made clear to me, so “please just admit that you made a mistake” suggests an awareness and refusal to accept responsibility that is unjustified.
  3. My misreading led me to say that you wanted to do something and that was a compounded error. Even if I’d been right, it would have been better to phase that impersonally.
  4. I don’t know if you spent any time trying to figure out what I might have misconstrued. I’ll tell you that with phrases like “Just because you invented” and “which happens entirely in your mind” and “it is a complete fabrication by you” you have earned the honor of owing me an apology.

By the way, FYI, OGS used to have a “Player Guide” for new users, but it disappeared from the site when this new version was launched. Presumably, it will be brought back when the developers have time after fixing the bugs. The document still exists and can be found at I found it helpful when I first started here a few months ago.

1 Like

I’m giving you benefit of the doubt here that the emoticon meant oyu were joking about writing with greater precision, because I think you’re the only one who “misread” it like this, and honestly I think your misinterpretation is a stretch. Actually blaming your misinterpretation on the language is pretty indefensible. Man, we all make mistakes, no big deal unless you spout off about how it’s not really your fault and blame others.

Overlooking, misinterpreting, whatever. This is pedantic.

Seems like exactly what you’ve been doing for like 4 posts now, actually.

Nah bro, this one’s all on you. You misinterpreted and spent no time considering that maybe you were reading it wrong until a number of responses called you out for this. Wulfenia’s comments that these ideas were entirely your own machinations is fair and accurate.


I’m going to fine tune the suggestion taking into consideration the comments and information others provided and post it on Uservoice as baelofoax suggested.

You know what? I believe I may see the wisdom of detaching the Suggestion Popularity Contest from the Contest of Ideas that plays out in the forum.

Speaking about uservoice, it would be nice to get some feedback from @anoek and the rest of the dev team on how much voting there actually affects the development process.

I strongly suspect that uservoice does not really work, chiefly because most users seem to be unaware of its existence, but also because of platform’s shortcomings (too few votes available for casting, no option to vote against the idea, etc). And if it indeed doesn’t work, maybe we should stop pretending it does.

On the other hand, if it turns out that I’m mistaken and uservote is a major part of dev team’s decision making, well, I guess I’ll have to pay more attention to it.

For what it’s worth, visit Status reveals: Under Review (22), Planned (12), Started (3), Completed (31), Declined (37). Maybe you can figure out some answers analyzing what you find buried there.


I already figured my answers out about year ago when I’ve given up on uservoice. I just wonder whether those were wrong answers, just in case :wink:

1 Like

And speaking of the proposed feature, if I had unlimited votes on uservoice and if it allowed negative votes, I’d vote against. Not that I’m opposed to the idea as such, but I’m not going to use this functionality and it’s not exactly trivial to implement, so I’m against devs spending time on it.

Oh my, this thread blew up.

Just so you know a several days ago, one of my submitions on uservoice changed status to “Under review”, so there’s some happening.
I think that for the last year or so, devs were working on under the hood things, so the implementation of new features slowed down. I think @anoek said something to that effect, and that the work on new features will resume after v5 is ironed out.

Whether uservoice is a viable way to express userbase preferences is another discussion, and I have no claim in it.

If you had unlimited votes maybe you could start selling them to people who want to stuff the ballot boxes for other surveys they host. You could use the proceeds to fund OGS development. Everyone would want to mark you as a saintly benefactor to remember and worship you but would be unable to do so because you yourself would refuse us the very means of doing so.

1 Like

Sure I would. In my opinion, both categorizing me as a saint (or a " F—ing A—hole", whatever you prefer) and developing tools to do so are tremendous waste of time.

Why? You’re an active contributor on uservoice. If you think it’s doing its work, I’ll take your claim seriously.
But guess you’re right, I better stop hijacking the thread.

Sorry if I offended anyone, it wasn’t my intention. It’s hard to get the tone right in online conversation, especially when you’re in a foul mood and not speaking your mother tongue. One day I’ll learn to remain silent, but that day of enlightenment is still quite far from me.

The main reason is that I don’t know of any other options (and I don’t care enough to research). I further support my indifference by uncertainty about utility of a potential switch to other service.
The secondary reason is that there’s no discussion (well, it’s starting to seem like there is now, although it’s off-topic for now). I don’t have opinions and arguments ready for a potential discussion in an area I don’t care about. Using uservoice was a developers’ decision, so I use it.

This certainly doesn’t mean that I would not engage in such a discussion. I just have no interest in starting one.
I hope this makes sense.

1 Like

While we’re ascribing motivations instead of actually addressing each other’s points, I’ve noticed you tend to ascribe motivations to people instead of simply addressing their points.

It’s just an observation - you can now tell me I’m making it because I am prejudiced agains people whose nicks start with W, or maybe because I secretly have a crush on Aten or something.

It’s certainly easier to yell at people, isn’t it?