>
> >or even making value judgements. It's amazing that this
> >discussion ever got to sucha ridiculous point.)
>
> It's not all that hard to figure out from here... you reported what you =
> deemed
> to be a problem. Many of us replied that it's not that big a deal in =
> *our*
> opinion.
And I replied that it wasn't that big of a deal either. :)
Honestly, go back and read the archives. This is really the
source of my frustration. I said God knows how many messages
ago that I didn't think this was serious, although I also
said that the ethical situations and the potential abuse
of the command is serious. I wrote that since only implementors
can switch you probably don't have to worry about fixing this
"bug/problem/whatever". I wrote that I thought there was no
reason to keep switches' unusual behavior in rather than
adding a seperate command, and I was unsure why so many people
insisted on protecting a anomolous, unexpected "feature"
(undocumented). I can see how people would want to read
other's mail, and I can see how people would want to add
commands that allow you to read other people's mail.
However, I maintain that the stock circle
behavior of switch needs "fixed". I explained very clearly
what I meant by this, that is, either "mail snooping" should
be added as a real, documented feature or it should be taken
out. I mean, I completely explained myself and I don't think
I'm taking any radical views. =)
George stopped responding, but Kenneth kept insisting that
it shouldn't be called a bug, etc, etc. I got into my
"droning" mode since I've already explained exactly what
I meant and Kenneth was just playing with words.
> You droned on trying to convince us that it was, and that it =
> was
> critically important that this behavior be modified.
No, not critically important that it be modified, rather the
assertion that it should be modified is a sound one. :)
> We once again said =
> that we
> understood the behavior, and some of us thought it might even have some =
> value.
> You repeated your assertions that it needed to be altered, and that if we=
> did
> not want to alter it, we must be lazy and/or inept.
No, I support "lazy" programming, ie- not changing things you don't
have to worry about. It's more effecient. However, I don't see the
reason for vehemently opposing that switch be changed. I'm all for
adding a mail snooping command, but switch's behavior is unexpected
and not very useful unless you modify the mud to take advantage of
it. I don't understand the incredibly negative response I've
gotten from some list members because I pointed this out. Like I
said, I understand that misunderstandings happen but when I point
out explicitly what I mean I expect people to take my word for
it that I know what my own position is. =)
> And so on, and so =
> on.
>
> The problem seems to be that you cannot accept that we can live with the
> behavior of switch as it currently functions in reguard to mud mail. Or,=
> you
> simply must have the last word on the subject, even if it's just a rehash=
> of a
> previous message.
I hope you now understand that I don't expect people to go out and
change their muds. Read the archives and you'll see me writing
that my intention was not to request/demand that people change it
but to bring it to their attention. Either they'll change it one
way or the other, or they'll just leave it unused as it is. (It
really isn't a capable tool for reading other player's mail unless
you add some sort of player loading command. Thus it needs "fixed",
using my terminology. That and the fact that it wasn't intended
to read mail, but I digress.) It's amazing that I could approach
the issue with such an uncontroversial position, explain myself
at every point my meaning was unclear, and still end up arguing
with some "not nice person" (;-), I won't call names) over
terminology. I guess I don't understand why people would be so
defensive about an undocumented "feature". Why not add a real
mail snooping command? I dunno. I don't care, I just wanted
to bring it to people's attention :) Sorry I came off
sounding so conroversial, but I just expected people to
understand that when I say something I mean it. That
includes times when what I say is opposite to what they've
interpreted my point as.
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST