Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
Sarda: Can you be more specific?
Felucia: the mapping of the Chatham House Rules to the affordances of this tool is clear.
Rocayne: New names!
Felucia: But if I'm the only one typing, and then I stop, and then text appears in the discussion box....
Tretogor: Given modern people's attention span, how can we balance our interaction with virtual and real-time spaces?
OP: the pie in the other room is good. when i first came in i thought the crowd was here for this.
Felucia: Man, now we're into heroic epithets!
Mercury: I like the idea of a short delay or could play music/some other sort of audio to partially drown out keyboard noise
Sarda: Or could wait until at least two comments were buffered and then send them in random order
Sarda: I would like to try this on a real, non-meta question
Felucia: yeah, a short buffer
Mercury: A non-meta Q could be helpful
Sarda: E.g., something about the mass shootings over the weekend.
Sarda: (Not to be too much of a downer, but it's real.)
Felucia: random might break the logical thread, would imply A was replying to B
Foam: could a delay introduce issues in low traffic or very lock step threaded discussions?
Rocayne: Word. How safe do you feel on campus right now?
Europa: It's chatham house rule but everyone is blindfolded - so really it is something significantly different. In a typical Chatham setting you are still accountable to the room!
Mercury: Just added a new thread
Felucia: "accountable to the room" is a great phrase
Sarda: There should be some reply functionality, @'ing people
Felucia: re: elements of community trust
Felucia: "@"-ing to make it clear to what you are responding?
Sarda: Wiz-> I feel moderately safe; it wouldn't take much to cause a dramatic transformation in how closed this campus is
Sarda: Dark-> Yes
Polaris: Agreed on the replies; also would be cool to turn a reply thread into a sub-thread with its own theme
Europa: a non-meta question that jumps out to me re. threads has to do with deniable authentication . Do folks have plausible deniability re. conversations on here/should they? why or why not
Sarda: Two issues emerging for me: (1) is it good or bad that attention w/in the room is spread among multiple topics and Qs (guess could use this thread for commenting on the tool as we use it)
Sarda: (2) maybe there should be a way to view two threads at once, instead of having to toggle between/among them
Io: if the idea is true pseudonymity, plausible deniability should be built in
Io: yes, with multiple parallel threads, very easy to miss out
Foam: @pyro, I was thinking the same thing
Procyon B: @Pyro there's also a difficulty in multitasking the conversation Charlie is having right now with focusing on replying to all these threads
Sarda: Maybe there should be two modes for Threads. (1) Focused discussion, single thread; (2) ideation, where new threads sprout and different discussions emerge
Foam: @pyro however that is also a feature in some cases - allowing the refinement of threads
Rocayne: Having an easy way to toggle between the two would be useful. And some indication of what topics are most active in the current moment
Polaris: Re the above point, my attention is significantly divided between the three threads and the verbal discussion
Io: ive noticed that every time ive seen charlie demo this--no one listens or only half listens
Polaris: but I'm enjoying all!
Sarda: Supah -> Hence two distinct modes of using it
Rocayne: It's difficult to listen and engage
Tretogor: @Evilhawk :'(
Polaris: Meltdown is far too relevant for this Monday morning
Sarda: Reminds me of what customer service chat rooms much be like on the CS side.
Felucia: wait, the two modes he refers to are actually meant to be simultaneous in parallel?
Felucia: like in the room, there's a voice conversation AND a threads conversation?