Facebook type chat client?

Eoin

Ronny Mitchell wrote: »

Plus, being able to switch it off/on like the facebook client in such a way that it doesn't load unless you're logged in and have it switched on in your preferences would prevent any blocking of the site, even if the chat bit was blocked.

I don't think it would, if the site itself is classified as a banned site.

Ron DMC

eoin wrote: »

I don't think it would, if the site itself is classified as a banned site.

Depends how it's implemented. If the site is allowed as it is currently, and the chat bit is the bit that makes it blocked, then shouldn't the site still be allowed if the chat bit isn't loaded?

Especially if you need to be logged in for the chat element to load, then surely the Websense app wouldn't even pick up.

That said, I have no idea how websense apps work.

javaboy

Ronny Mitchell wrote: »

Depends how it's implemented. If the site is allowed as it is currently, and the chat bit is the bit that makes it blocked, then shouldn't the site still be allowed if the chat bit isn't loaded?

Unlikely. The odds are that once a website gets flagged as potential trouble, the whole site would probably be blocked. If they used a different domain for the chat traffic then it might be ok.

Eoin

Ronny Mitchell wrote: »

Depends how it's implemented. If the site is allowed as it is currently, and the chat bit is the bit that makes it blocked, then shouldn't the site still be allowed if the chat bit isn't loaded?

Especially if you need to be logged in for the chat element to load, then surely the Websense app wouldn't even pick up.

That said, I have no idea how websense apps work.

Some applications like websense seem to have both content filtering and classification filtering.

For instance, a page on the gmail domain: even if it had absolutely no content relating to webmail would be blocked if the policy didn't allow you to access webmail.

However, online videos might also be blocked, so a page under a news site like www.theregister.co.uk that might normally be available could be blocked if it has references to youtube. This happened to me in my last company.

faceman

As strange as it might sound, I think boards is too big a community for it to work properly. I would see a number of issues potentially arising:

* Open to abuse
* Used as a vehicle to air "What did you ban me for you *%&$" complaints
* Defeats the purpose of boards being a community given you cant 'share' a chat unless you are there to witness it.
* Moderation would be a nightmare
* Runs a big risk of making it seem large cliches are present.

seamus

faceman wrote: »

I would see a number of issues potentially arising:

* Open to abuse
* Used as a vehicle to air "What did you ban me for you *%&$" complaints
* Defeats the purpose of boards being a community given you cant 'share' a chat unless you are there to witness it.
* Moderation would be a nightmare
* Runs a big risk of making it seem large cliches are present.

It could work if it was completely limited to only chatting 1-to-1 and between friends. This cuts out any problems of abuse and makes it unlikely that anything substantial will be discussed.

I don't think it requires moderation. I'm loath to moderate PMs as it is, since they're effectively private conversations. I don't do anything about reported PMs unless it's spam or harrassment because you have the option to block the person and it's private, which is key here.

If it were to be turned into a chat room style thing, then moderation is needed, but we don't want a chat room. Not again

_blank_

seamus wrote: »

It could work if it was completely limited to only chatting 1-to-1 and between friends.

Yep, JUST LIKE facebook.

I can't see why anyone who is capable of using Facebook in work would have a problem with this type of thing on Boards.

Jonathan

There are many times when you want to have a private chat with someone but not exactly formal. PM's are a bit cumbersome for this purpose.


The beauty of a XMPP server would be that people could access it externally.

It would mean that I could connect using pidgin, mr applefanboi could connect using adium, and mr webuser can connect using a client built into boards.

If you think Mr IT department will block it, you can simply disable the webclient, and run a XMPP client on some webhosting somewhere. Keep moving it around and they cant stop you forever.

Eoin

Jonathan wrote: »

There are many times when you want to have a private chat with someone but not exactly formal. PM's are a bit cumbersome for this purpose.

Yep - I think some folks might be missing what I think the point is - simply a less clunky and less formal way to chat than PM, just like it's a more casual way to chat than email. I can't see how it would take from any discussion at all.

seamus

Jonathan wrote: »

If you think Mr IT department will block it, you can simply disable the webclient, and run a XMPP client on some webhosting somewhere. Keep moving it around and they cant stop you forever.

Problem that people is pointing out is that along with particular algorithms to detect types of traffic on a site, most softwares also maintain a central database of site types. All it takes is one overly vigilant admin to flag boards.ie as "social networking" or "internet chat" in the central database and everyone using that software blocks boards.ie at the next update.

Eoin

This is true seamus, but as I said, I believe anywhere that is that zealous wouldn't allow access to a message board site in the first place.

TimTim

faceman wrote: »

As strange as it might sound, I think boards is too big a community for it to work properly. I would see a number of issues potentially arising:

* Open to abuse
* Used as a vehicle to air "What did you ban me for you *%&$" complaints
* Defeats the purpose of boards being a community given you cant 'share' a chat unless you are there to witness it.
* Moderation would be a nightmare
* Runs a big risk of making it seem large cliches are present.

The solution I see to those problems is to restrict it to mutual friends that are currently set up in vbulletin, but in doing this are you eliminating the main reason for using it in the first place?

Jonathan wrote: »

There are many times when you want to have a private chat with someone but not exactly formal. PM's are a bit cumbersome for this purpose.


The beauty of a XMPP server would be that people could access it externally.

It would mean that I could connect using pidgin, mr applefanboi could connect using adium, and mr webuser can connect using a client built into boards.

If you think Mr IT department will block it, you can simply disable the webclient, and run a XMPP client on some webhosting somewhere. Keep moving it around and they cant stop you forever.

I don't know if an XMPP server is right for this purpose, but there is a hell of a lot of work in moving it around all the place, how would you get the users to be able to connect consistantly and not present is also as a way of blocking it at the same time?

eoin wrote: »

This is true seamus, but as I said, I believe anywhere that is that zealous wouldn't allow access to a message board site in the first place.

Agreed, if people were going to block boards they would've done it already.

Sarky

An File wrote: »

Yeah, I heard all about the Bubbles incident!

It's not funny.

Insect Overlord

Sarky wrote: »

It's not funny.

Neither is quoting week-old posts...