Microcosm Feature Suggestions

Or huddler.com

But these are common words and so long as we're not passing off I cannot see how there is a conflict or point of confusion about it.

We're not using anyone else's trademark (our use is not the name of a product or company), and you cannot copyright a common word.

Break out? (Yuck)
Gang?
Chat?
Meeting?
Group talk?
Get together?
Ring? "Ring me", "let's make a ring", "talk about it in a ring".

Yeah, I like ring.

Ring?

Like... circle?

As in, Google Circles?

Google is a common word, surely they can't have trademarked that?

We trademarked Microcosm. A word that has been around a good while now.

You can trademark a word, as a company name or product name, within a specific field.

But then you are only protecting that word in that context, as a thing within a specific field.

We have the trademark for Microcosm as it relates to forums, chat systems, electronic communication. We cannot enforce it in any meaningful way outside of that, and could only really enforce it against entities who create confusion with our identity in some way.

That's the same with Google.

And the same would apply to Huddle.

So long as we do not name a product or the company, in such a way that it could cause confusion with their offering they should not have a problem.

Etymologically this is the right word for what we're describing. And it's just being used in that context.

Should be fine.

I'm really not convinced by that since huddle provides conversation software, albeit around documents, and has a concept of forming a huddle conversation amongst a subset of users. Not the hardest case for confusion, in the hands of a properly motivated trademark lawyer. IMO.

If that scenario arises I'll speak to Andy about it. We share lawyers and friends already, probably investors in the future. He's a sane and cool guy, and unless we go into the business space I can't see how this would even begin to be a point of contention.

It's not like I wouldn't rename the private messaging system to something else, but to pre-emptively do so when there is no issue today and shouldn't be one, well that would make Microcosm far too risk averse. Imagine if we tried to avoid all possible points of contention? We'd do nothing.

The word huddle, as we plan to use it, should not be an issue at all. And it is the right word.

I think you should call it 'chinwag/s'

Fair nuff. I should have assumed you had inside knowledge :-)

call it a "hangout"

'Fixie gang' is the best expression.

"Send a PM to X" => "Engage in a Coven with X"
?

We might identify a fresh and accurate metaphor, but if it's unfamiliar it won't be better than an inaccurate but familiar metaphor.

My vote goes to circlejerk, bukkake or "all on coke together" if you chat at each other then forget everything you've just said as soon as you leave.

'Breakaway' :)

spoke? maybe?
speak/spoke is familiar, then there's the bike twist...which works for lfgss but does it work for others?

join a spoke, send a message to a spoke, leave a spoke
the button icon - a spoke...

as a question on the PM system

you say you can add people to a PM conversation

do all parties have to agree on the adding of another?

I.e i'm having a private convo with you velocio and you decide to share it with the world by adding the entire of popcorn thread to the conversation

ooh. good q.

Will people who have been added halfway through a convo be able to see all the nasty things about them the existing participants said earlier?

traditionally that would be a separate convo, don't know of any non-realtime messaging systems that do it.

PMs would be private but a huddle would show the previous conversion to new people by the sounds of it.

as a question on the PM system

you say you can add people to a PM conversation

do all parties have to agree on the adding of another?

I.e i'm having a private convo with you velocio and you decide to share it with the world by adding the entire of popcorn thread to the conversation

PMs would be private but a huddle would show the previous conversion to new people by the sounds of it.

Pretty much this.

Imagine a thread that is private, and only Alice and Bob sees it. Then Bob adds Charles to the thread, and so Alice, Bob and Charles see the whole thread, every post in it.

The problem as I see it is that PMs have traditionally been more like SMS messages. You send individual messages to a new set of recipients each time. They're not grouped as a conversation, and this makes it really hard to find stuff later and to make sense of it. You have to open them all individually to find the one-line of info you're looking for, and it's frustrating as logically it's one conversation.

And if you group it all together as a conversation, then what's the simplest way to deal with the fact that traditionally that would mean merging the permissions of every individual message and still trying to make the conversation coherent.

I also think from a privacy perspective that you should see who else can see something. Today someone can forward your message and you wouldn't know who is doing it. But I think it should be that if Charles adds David, then Alice and Bob also know this and there is full transparency around that.

And thus, what I ended up with is the idea that you really just have private conversations that have a list of participants/recipients, and the permissions are flattened down to that list. That everyone knows who else has seen it, and that when you've all left the conversation that it ceases to exist.

Hence me not wanting to call it private messages, as that is loaded with the expectations and experience of how these things have worked. I'd rather say, how should they work in a way that makes it super easy to use, find stuff, understand, and then present that.

Im a bit confused though, what if i want a conversation without the chance of anyone else being involved?

Your explanation sounds like my pm could end up a group convo even if i didnt want it too

PMs ain't huddles, two separate things. You could huddle with one other person but then add more people who would see what was written. I'd guess a PM would be private and without the option to add others.
IANAMicrocosmer.

Im a bit confused though, what if i want a conversation without the chance of anyone else being involved?

Your explanation sounds like my pm could end up a group convo even if i didnt want it too

But that doesn't exist today on any other service.

Emails, PMs, all these things can be forwarded without your knowledge and probably are.

A PM today is just a group conversation where group size = 2. But there's nothing to stop your messages being forwarded and distributed such that many other people are involved without your knowledge.

How is it private when it can secretly be forwarded to others?

So is this idea hated?

PMs ain't huddles, two separate things. You could huddle with one other person but then add more people who would see what was written. I'd guess a PM would be private and without the option to add others.
IANAMicrocosmer.

Actually I wasn't intending to add PMs as they exist in vBulletin.

Huddles would replace them.

The idea is:

Old:
Individual messages, no conversations, difficult to view all messages as one stream of responses. Every message has it's own recipient list. Forwarding/sharing kept some recipients in the dark.

New:
Private conversations of messages, single stream of responses. One recipient list for the conversation. Forwarding/sharing has visibility to the other recipients.

How is it private when it can secretly be forwarded to others?

So is this idea hated?

Possibly the difference is that if Alice says Charles is a big twat with BO in a huddle with Bob, and Bob adds Charles at some point after that part of the conversation, then Alice is still taking part in it and is likely to find it quite embarrassing. Sure, Bob could have forwarded the conversation to poor Charles at any time but that would then make it two private dialogues between two different people (although admittedly involving each other). By grouping it all together the implicit "privacy" of the other dialogues is lost.

I don't hate the idea but I do think that you'll need to add a note somewhere very obvious at the point of adding new participants that says that those new participants will be able to see the entire thread.

what bothwell said