VIRTUAL meeting needed

All this talk about needing a CP meeting is well and good, but it doesn't 
do any good for those of us that are not in physical distances of the 
meeting place.

Instead, perhaps we need to organize for another virtual meeting again.  
With a little more organizing, it would go smoother.

____        Robert A. Hayden          <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
\  /__          -=-=-=-=-             <=>          -=-=-=-=-
 \/  /   Finger for Geek Code Info    <=> In the United States, they
   \/  Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> first came for us in Colorado...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1)  GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
		       n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)

> Instead, perhaps we need to organize for another virtual meeting again.  
> With a little more organizing, it would go smoother.

How about trying IRC this time?

	Julf

On Sun, 27 Feb 1994, Johan Helsingius wrote:

> 
> > Instead, perhaps we need to organize for another virtual meeting again.  
> > With a little more organizing, it would go smoother.
> 
> How about trying IRC this time?

Actually, I'm convinced that the MOO setting like the last one worked 
better IF IT HAD THE PROPER ORGANIZATION.  Get yourself a client like 
TinyFugue and it is very nice.   IRC, while being simple, lacks a lot of 
the features that aid in helping an organized meeting.

____        Robert A. Hayden          <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
\  /__          -=-=-=-=-             <=>          -=-=-=-=-
 \/  /   Finger for Geek Code Info    <=> In the United States, they
   \/  Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> first came for us in Colorado...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1)  GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
		       n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)

I agree... IRC is much too limited compared to the bast virtual realities 
of MOOs, and IRC is also much more unrealible... we have IRC for about 12 
hours a day, simply because the server for IRC keeps killing itself :(

On Sat, 26 Feb 1994, Robert A. Hayden wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Feb 1994, Johan Helsingius wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > Instead, perhaps we need to organize for another virtual meeting again.  
> > > With a little more organizing, it would go smoother.
> > 
> > How about trying IRC this time?
> 
> Actually, I'm convinced that the MOO setting like the last one worked 
> better IF IT HAD THE PROPER ORGANIZATION.  Get yourself a client like 
> TinyFugue and it is very nice.   IRC, while being simple, lacks a lot of 
> the features that aid in helping an organized meeting.
> 
> ____        Robert A. Hayden          <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
> \  /__          -=-=-=-=-             <=>          -=-=-=-=-
>  \/  /   Finger for Geek Code Info    <=> In the United States, they
>    \/  Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> first came for us in Colorado...
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> (GEEK CODE 1.0.1)  GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
> 		       n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
> 
>

>I agree... IRC is much too limited compared to the bast virtual realities 
>of MOOs, and IRC is also much more unrealible... we have IRC for about 12 
>hours a day, simply because the server for IRC keeps killing itself :(

Another vote here for a MOO, as opposed to IRC.  If done right, MOO meetings
are much easier to follow, IMNSHO..

Jesse V. Montrose  |tellmesomethingidontknowsellmesomethingicantusepushthebutt
jesse@netcom.com   |onconnectthegoddamneddotsliveinthiefinmybedroombathroomcom
jesse@xaostools.com|moditysodomyglassautonomypromiseeverythingtakeitallawaygiv
PGP|FTP /pub/jesse |eitarestyourelyingthroughyourteeth                Ministry

On Sat, 26 Feb 1994, Colin Orion Chandler wrote:

> I agree... IRC is much too limited compared to the bast virtual realities 
> of MOOs, and IRC is also much more unrealible... we have IRC for about 12 
> hours a day, simply because the server for IRC keeps killing itself :(
> 
> 
	Yes, not to mention that it just seems a lot cleaner so to 
speack, and also I dont have IRC here.  I think a virtual MOO is very 
important at this juncture.  It's probably the best low-cost(as in close 
to nil) virtual meeting you can get.  Just as long as I can get a 
client(not a prob) and am sufficiently prepared to figure out wht MOO 
it's on etc.. so I can go get accustumed. etc...


	You're eqipped with a hundred billion nueron brain, that's
	wired and fired, and it's a reality generating device, but
	you've got too do it.  Free youself  ----Tim Leary----

What about MediaMOO
(MIT MediaLab)
Storm the temple!

I'll be happy to talk with the janitors to ensure they can handle all the 
guest accounts simultaneously and set up a suitable environment
(there is a virtual auditorium which is set-up to handle a large 
gathering and there is precedent for this type of meeting).
Can anyone give me an idea of how many people were on for the last meeting?

galiel@wlord.std.com
Flout 'em and scout 'em -- and scout 'em and flout 'em;
Thought is free.
			-- Shakespeare

On behalf of the folks at BayMOO, I'd be delighted to invite the 
cypherpunks back for a second virtual meeting.  Our first session on 
February 9 gave a taste of what's possible.  Another session, with a 
cleanly organized agenda, could work even better. There are a number of 
cypherpunks with named accounts at BayMOO already, and new accounts can 
be handled in a day by writing to blast@crl.com (blast is also on the list).
As someone indicated, MOOs work best with clients like Tinyfugue, though 
it is possible to do all right with raw telnet (especially if you have 
com software, like Microphone, that gives you a text buffer for 
composition before you send your words out into the virtual room).
  There are several options for organization for whoever will be putting 
the session together. There are:
  -- large rooms that can be moderated (speaker queues, separate rows for 
private conversations, etc.);
  -- smaller rooms for sessions with 2-10 people;
  -- mindspeak channels for folks who want to attend a meeting and 
discuss other issues on a channel at the same time
  -- virtual videotaping or autologging of the proceedings.
  The key to success, though, as the last meeting clearly indicated, is 
an agenda with clearly specified topics and time-certain beginnings and 
endings.  Moderators to make sure that speakers cleave to the stated 
topic seem best for large meetings; smaller groups can, if they like, let 
the conversations develop with their own internal momentum.
   Just let me or blast know if the idea of a second virtual meeting at 
BayMOO appeals to you, and we'll make the arrangements.

conch  n.  any of a group of large spiral-
		shelled marine mullusks, or the shell or animal
		individually.  [fr. L. concha, shell fr. Gk]


I've thought some about the prior meeting and what I would do
differently.  At the previous meeting, I had the dubious fortune of
being designated a speaker -- which did give me a chance to introduce
my pet topics, but had some disadvantages as well -- I lost the ability
to chat quietly with people in my row, and I felt compelled to say
something even when I had nothing to say.  I also noticed that others
who were not speakers did not feel like full participants in the event.

Now don't take these criticisms too strongly.  I was very impressed
on the whole with how well it went in spite of a few problems, and it
was really cool having far-flung punks join us.    I stayed for nearly 
two hours, when really I had thought it could last 30 minutes at most.

As for IRC, I'm attracted to the idea of a free-for-all, but I honestly
was not able to follow anything when everyone had gathered together
but before the speach controls were imposed -- there were just too many  
threads at once, and I couldn't find the ones I was following.

Anyway, some brainstorms follow.  I think these are not too different 
from what we were trying before, and could be easily implemented.
(I wish I had already put some time into mud programming, and could
offer some implementations, but alas i haven't.)

Sitting in rows:  this was good.  having random people on your row
was interesting.  At times, the discussion in the row was better than the 
official discussion, partly because of the intimacy -- like
you didn't have to be shy about asking stupid questions or making
sneid remarks.

Gurus:  It would be good to distribute the BayMOO regulars
throughout the rows, so they can answer questions about how to use the
moo.  If a few others on the row overhear the question/answers, it
doesn't hurt and may educate them, too.  Wouldn't hurt if someone on
each row had some semi-wizardly powers as well, so they could fix
inequities and problems they perceive.

Conch:  Remember the Conch shell in the Lord of the Flies -- in order to
talk you had to have the conch.  A protocol might be to have eight
conchs, and you enqueue when you ask for the conch, and you release
it when you are done, and the next person in line gets it.  If I 
say "drop conch" and Julf is next in line (he had typed "wait conch"), 
the mud could announce
	strick9 passes a conch to Julf
and these messages would be easy to ignore or to follow.  Anyway, this
would limit the number of speakers at any one time, but allow a rotation
of everyone to be able to speak.   Improvement:
	wait conch with "what is this PGP you keep talking about?"
lets you type ahead one message while you're waiting in queue.
Then "wait conch" alone kills your typeahead message, but doesn't change
your status in line, in case someone already made your comment.
Build some limits into the conch -- you automatically drop if after
five broadcasts or after 3 minutes.  Wizards should be able to tweak
things like this in realtime.

Priorities:  I had thought about handing everyone a dozen digitickets
as they walked into the door.  It would cost you one ticket every time
you spoke.  This would cause you to ration your comments.  But a more
general way of achieving the same effect, yet adjusting gently to
actual conditions (how did I know 12 was the right number of tickets?),
is to imitate an operating system's prioritized wait queue.  Give top
priority to people who have never spoken before.  They get the next
conch available.  A generalization is to use "priority aging", like
UNIX nice(1), so that the longer it's been since you spoke, the better
your advantage over others waiting.  BIG MACS and MEDUSA'S SISTERS could 
be given extra advantage, nice -10, and SUSPECTED PSYCHOWONX and
Unreal Persons could be nice'd +10 if a wizard deemed them disruptive.
The nice thing is that if there are eight conchs and there are only eight
people who want to talk, they get the eight conchs, regardless of their
priorities.  The algorithm adapts to the circumstances.

Practice:  24 hours before the appointed meeting, there should be a 
practice meeting, a dress rehersal, but with bogus topics and a silly
attitude, to try out the software and for everyone to become familiar with
the process.  Topics should be like
	which is better, cats or dogs?
	why i hate unix
	Stegospeakers Anonymous
	which mud restaurant we will crash when this meeting is over?
and of course
	the wit and wisdom of L.Detweiler
and any other space-filling curves we don't want to waste time on
at the real meeting.


				<strick9 at BayMoo>

> I've thought some about the prior meeting and what I would do
> differently.  At the previous meeting, I had the dubious fortune of
> being designated a speaker -- which did give me a chance to introduce
> my pet topics, but had some disadvantages as well -- I lost the ability
> to chat quietly with people in my row, and I felt compelled to say
> something even when I had nothing to say.  I also noticed that others
> who were not speakers did not feel like full participants in the event.

> As for IRC, I'm attracted to the idea of a free-for-all, but I honestly
> was not able to follow anything when everyone had gathered together
> but before the speach controls were imposed -- there were just too many  
> threads at once, and I couldn't find the ones I was following.

Uh... Yes, I think experimenting with new ways to run a virtual meeting
is A Good Thing. But... We have a meeting to run. So how about
sticking to familiar tools for the actual meeting, so that we can concentrate
on the *issues* at hand, and schedule the experimental stuff separately.

If we need "rows" and whatever, why not just form a dozen separate IRC channels,
one on each sub-issue, and you can join as many or as few as you like at one
time. Let's not complicate things too much - we have a war to fight!

	Julf

> 	Yes, not to mention that it just seems a lot cleaner so to 
> speack, and also I dont have IRC here.

But you don't have a MOO client either!

>  I think a virtual MOO is very 
> important at this juncture.  It's probably the best low-cost(as in close 
> to nil) virtual meeting you can get.

Uh... Why is IRC any more expensive?

>  Just as long as I can get a 
> client(not a prob) and am sufficiently prepared to figure out wht MOO 
> it's on etc.. so I can go get accustumed. etc...

You are prepared to get a MOO client but not an IRC client?

	Julf

On Sun, 27 Feb 1994, Johan Helsingius wrote:

> 
> > 	Yes, not to mention that it just seems a lot cleaner so to 
> > speack, and also I dont have IRC here.
> 
> But you don't have a MOO client either!
>
	yeah, i don't
 
> >  I think a virtual MOO is very 
> > important at this juncture.  It's probably the best low-cost(as in close 
> > to nil) virtual meeting you can get.
> 
> Uh... Why is IRC any more expensive?
> 
	Well considering that in IRC you dont have all the neat stuff you 
can do in a MOO, like some people explained with the rows and "speaking 
sticks" ideas.  IRC is very cheap, free, but it is also rather minimal in 
my opinion.

> >  Just as long as I can get a 
> > client(not a prob) and am sufficiently prepared to figure out wht MOO 
> > it's on etc.. so I can go get accustumed. etc...
> 
> You are prepared to get a MOO client but not an IRC client?
> 

	Well, yes, it's alot easier to get the MOO client, then it would 
be to get the IRC client and compile it on a low quota account wiht 
sysops that dont like IRC at all.  I have tried it before with limited 
succes, and I dont plan on doing it again considering the status that the 
sysops have put it under here.

	My point simply was that MOOs IMO lend themselves to more of a 
virtual reality feel, than IRC does.   I have been on IRC and to follow 
multiple threads on it, and to have a meaninglful structure to the 
discussion, is very difficult IMO.

> 	Julf
> 
> 

	You're eqipped with a hundred billion nueron brain, that's
	wired and fired, and it's a reality generating device, but
	you've got too do it.  Free youself  ----Tim Leary----

> I agree... IRC is much too limited compared to the bast virtual realities 
> of MOOs,

I agree. But we need to have a meeting, not a virtual reality.

MOOs are a really interesting social experiment, but I prefer to live
in the real world. IRC is a simple, straightforward everyday tool that
doesn't get in your way and doesn't try to impose some internal fake
universe on you.

>  and IRC is also much more unrealible... we have IRC for about 12 
> hours a day, simply because the server for IRC keeps killing itself :(

Sure. And my notebok PC is much more unreliable than my Sun. It's keyboard
keeps going dead. So we should all abandon PC:s and switch to Suns ;-)

	Julf