Make groups public so anyone can join, with moderation rules for disputes #75
I strongly dislike the secrecy of groups. Why can't they be public so everyone can join them? Groups should have rules, and repeated offences can be dealt with in a civil manner by being cautioned or, eventually, removed — at least temporarily.
As an example, these are my group's rules: when a dispute cannot be resolved, moderators may take the following steps — Caution: the member receives a private or public reminder about the group rules. Temporary removal: if the behavior continues, the member may be temporarily removed from the group. Permanent removal: a member may be blocked from the group at the moderators' discretion if they repeatedly violate the rules or engage in harassment, personal attacks, or deliberate misinformation. Reinstatement: a removed member may request reinstatement; if at least two existing members support the appeal, that person will be reinstated and given a new chance to contribute and belong. I think this rule set is fair and not overbearing.
Three of you have now asked for this — Nori twice and Yvain once — so the other two are merged in here and the votes sit together.
The honest state of it: a group today is private by definition. An invitation is the only way in, and that is the thing that makes it private rather than a setting on top of it. A public group is not that feature with a switch flipped; it needs three things groups do not have — a way to find one (a list, somewhere), a way to run one (your rules), and an answer to what happens to somebody who is removed.
Nori, your rule set is the part we would otherwise have had to invent, and we would start from it rather than from scratch: a caution, then temporary removal, then permanent removal at the moderators' discretion, and reinstatement if two members support the appeal. That is a fairer ladder than most places manage.
Yvain's framing is the shape we would build toward: both kinds side by side, private groups as they are now and open topic-based ones alongside them, rather than replacing one with the other.
Nori's other idea — leaving a group and taking your own messages with you — is a separate question and a harder one, because a conversation is not only yours once other people have answered it. Noted, not forgotten, but it is not part of this.
No date, and we are not going to pretend otherwise. This stays open so people can keep voting for it; it is already the most-asked thing about group chats.
I see no reason to force groups to be public. They are conversations between more than one person, and should be as private as a conversation between two people in our messages. If the group wants to do something special, they can post in chat and invite interested people to request an invitation. Nothing difficult about that. Anyone can have a topic-based discussion openly in Chat. Some people would not be wanted in some groups. For example, the people who post only images of women in underwear or suggestive poses would not be welcome in a group of mine, and so the person who creates the group should always control who joins and who sees content. The groups are meant to be an advantage, not another problem, so I wouldn't want someone I disliked joining mine, either.
I was just referring to visibility—the fact that these groups exist at all. What goes on inside them should remain private, but this way, you can ask to join if the group chat's topic appeals to you. That’s what I meant!
Well, I accept both comments since both seam in line with what I also want. That's, ability to control the group and what is added to it but also visibility if opted for it. I would also like more members in the group. Perhaps 100 member limit or, no limit at all, if possible. Again with an option. I do realize that all people's needs are not the same and that perhaps I'm asking for too much. In that case, I do apologize to the Management. I will patiently await DDG to make such decisions. XXX
Also maybe there could be a way to chat without paying for a subscription? Maybe energy could be used so you could no just read chat but also speak in chat? Although maybe it's best you have to pay monthly to be able to speak...
@Aaron✿Baker :
The current system, however, offers a certain level of protection against scammers and spammers. That would be one side of the coin. Without this barrier, the risk would indeed be higher, in my opinion.
Indeed, I see the issue. Although you just have some pretty devoted community members who are locked out because they'll never pay a sub. This thread is about creating a small workaround to ease some of the cliquishness on here. The funny part is I have heard a bunch of complaints about that. I don't care but I know many others do deeply. Yet the stance here seems to be lets reinforce the wall garden model. In the case of some they're a couple and will not pay for two subscriptions. Seems like a pretty sad way to run things. Honestly I'm fine with it, I wouldn't be invited any how =). Also there's plenty of things that need fixing before chat rooms needed to happen. For instance their mobile UI/UX makes you realize the developers don't use the platform on mobile. If they did I get the feeling there would be some embarrassment.