Please mind that the demo room is an open space to show off the features. Once you create your own flat, you are able to edit moderators, guest list, allowed email domains, banned list and keep the flat open and closed whenever you want. There is also ability to kick & ban.
I've seen others implement things like personal boundaries, hiding from others, and avoiding being boxed in by others.
I find this very interesting. After all, it's a space governed by a physics engine which can potentially bring another dimension of annoying things that one can do. In flat.social you can push other people, magnetise yourself to others and so on.
Nevertheless, users do not move with keyboard only - you can also move by "flying" yourself around with a mouse or a drag event. If you want to remain static, you can anchor yourself to a spot on the map and no one will be able to box you into a corner or to disturb a conversation by pushing around.
Or, presumably, people could box you in by anchoring themselves around you? Similarly, I give it 5 mins before magnetising to others makes people uncomfortable, or is used for downright harassment.
Ask any woman what it's like to go to a tech conference, and then try to guess if they would be comfortable using a tool like yours as it currently stands.
Ask any woman what it's like to go to a tech conference, and then try to guess if they would be comfortable using a tool like yours as it currently stands.
Why did you ignore their reply to you entirely?
Please mind that the demo room is an open space to show off the features. Once you create your own flat, you are able to edit moderators, guest list, allowed email domains, banned list and keep the flat open and closed whenever you want. There is also ability to kick & ban.
What would you do in a Zoom call with co-workers, friends, or attendees of a presentation who were disruptive? You'd kick them or leave.
I didn't ignore their reply. I responded to their expansion on the physical options for moving in the space.
The same argument for booting disruptive people could be made for conferences, too. Yes, it's much easier with smaller and more closely-knit teams, but it still happens. And your suggestion is _only_ any good for closely-knit teams. Once it starts getting used for more open-attendance events, that starts to fall apart.
We don't have to theorise about this stuff from first principles, we can see exactly this behaviour panning out for real in existing social systems today. Kick or leave as the two options doesn't cut it there, so why should it be sufficient here?
Comments
Hey!
Please mind that the demo room is an open space to show off the features. Once you create your own flat, you are able to edit moderators, guest list, allowed email domains, banned list and keep the flat open and closed whenever you want. There is also ability to kick & ban.
I find this very interesting. After all, it's a space governed by a physics engine which can potentially bring another dimension of annoying things that one can do. In flat.social you can push other people, magnetise yourself to others and so on.
Nevertheless, users do not move with keyboard only - you can also move by "flying" yourself around with a mouse or a drag event. If you want to remain static, you can anchor yourself to a spot on the map and no one will be able to box you into a corner or to disturb a conversation by pushing around.
Or, presumably, people could box you in by anchoring themselves around you? Similarly, I give it 5 mins before magnetising to others makes people uncomfortable, or is used for downright harassment.
Ask any woman what it's like to go to a tech conference, and then try to guess if they would be comfortable using a tool like yours as it currently stands.
Why did you ignore their reply to you entirely?
What would you do in a Zoom call with co-workers, friends, or attendees of a presentation who were disruptive? You'd kick them or leave.
I didn't ignore their reply. I responded to their expansion on the physical options for moving in the space.
The same argument for booting disruptive people could be made for conferences, too. Yes, it's much easier with smaller and more closely-knit teams, but it still happens. And your suggestion is _only_ any good for closely-knit teams. Once it starts getting used for more open-attendance events, that starts to fall apart.
We don't have to theorise about this stuff from first principles, we can see exactly this behaviour panning out for real in existing social systems today. Kick or leave as the two options doesn't cut it there, so why should it be sufficient here?