Search Ideas
2048 ideas match your query.:
The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, separately notify participants of the change.
The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, separately notify participants of the change.
A change to the privacy setting is notable enough that it requires a dedicated notification independent of any changes to a discussion title or about section.
The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, notify participants of the activity.
The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, notify participants.
How would you notify participants of changes to the privacy setting?
Preview links of discussions should show the name of the discussion being linked.
See eg https://x.com/agentofapollo/status/1991252721618547023
h/t @benjamin-davies
Good call. I made the pagination ‘sticky’ as of 1e7a85d. Archiving this but let me know if something isn’t working right.
Yeah I’d consider discipline irrational because it means one part of you coerces another.
Having said that, there could be value in learning how to deal productively with situations where you cannot avoid coercion. Like the government forcing you to do your taxes, which you will only do if you translate that external coercion into internal coercion. Nobody else can really coerce you, only you can coerce yourself. It would be nice to do this productively and also in a way that doesn’t practice/internalize self-coercion. And it should be rare. I don’t think basic chores qualify.
In later implementations, I could maybe implement a ‘soft’ delete or grace period. Or I could keep the associated records and rely on authorization rules to prevent access. But as of right now, that’s a premature consideration.
If the discussion owner accidentally removes someone and then adds them back right away, it sucks if all the associated records are still gone.
What if they still have subscriptions or bookmarks in that discussion?
Have you seen: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/core-objectivist-values
Might have some more virtues to include.
Need a search form per discussion.
This functionality is pretty standard across apps. You can be removed from Discord servers, Telegram channels, etc without warning or reason at any time. People generally know and accept this. If they still put in effort, that’s on them.
That depends on a bunch of factors, including their relationship with the discussion owner, into which Veritula has no visibility.
But then invitees might not put as much effort into those discussions.
But that sucks. Maybe someone works hard and submits a bunch of ideas only to lose access to them all.
Maybe you remove them because you don’t even want them to be able to see anything.
There’d probably be a bunch of edge cases with this approach. For example, others would still be able to comment on those ideas, and the comments would have to be hidden from OPs. Which begs the question of how that impacts the displayed criticism count… And so on.
If you later realize that adding someone was a mistake, you should be able to correct that mistake.
Permanent access: once added, you can’t remove them.
They could keep read-only access to the discussion but can’t add new ideas or change existing ideas.