forced_anon chat

Imagine this: you load up a 4chan chat page, and you're connected to another user to chat one on one. Completely at random, with no traces of identity whatsoever. That's it. There could be a button to get a new person if you really don't like who you're talking to or you've seen them before, or you could just hit F5. In the true spirit of Anonymous, you could talk about anything in complete freedom.

I think that could be pretty awesome (and also pretty fail, but such is the way of all things chan), and it's an idea that I've had in the back of my mind for a while. I don't have the wherewithal to make it happen, however, so by /img/'s recommendation I'm here pitching it to /prog/ in the hope that someone will get inspired and make this happen. I'd really like to see it made real. I have to imagine that it would be very simple to make, although finding a good host and getting people to use it is another matter.

Anyone's interest piqued?

>>196
That actually wouldn't be too difficult to implement, just involves adding a timeout to the gen_tcp:recv call I think. I'll take a look at it if no one else does; I think the first changes I'm going to make are to add the fucking \r\n because I use telnet goddammit.

Oh, and code to handle backspaces right (if that hasn't already been added), lawds.

I decree that this is the best thread on /prog/

>>201
If you use a buffered client like netcat, it only sends one line at a time so backspaces are not encountered at all. Also, default 5-minute no activity timeout (just close the socket) would be great.

I could also hack up a chat client in Flash ala iGod if you want.

Also, host a chatpool on a different port so we don't have to just talk to one person at a time, or maybe a command to add another anon to the conversation.

>>203
Implementing TELNET with linemode (RFC 1184) would sort that one out for all telnet clients

>>203
A spiffy flash interface would be awesome.

"so we don't have to just talk to one person at a time, or maybe a command to add another anon to the conversation"
... What?

Also, host a chatpool on a different port so we don't have to just talk to one person at a time, or maybe a command to add another anon to the conversation.

lol, IRC

>>203 Also, host a chatpool on a different port so we don't have to just talk to one person at a time
This feature actually exists. I was conversing with 2 anons yesterday, and with myself with a total of 4 clients. And I'd like to suggest a forced one socket per IP policy.
>>2003 or maybe a command to add another anon to the conversation.
It would be impossible to understand who is who.

>>207
It would impossible unless each anon was assigned a different identifier. e.g. first two people are <Anonymous-1> and <Anonymous-2>, but if another joined (by mutual - or majority? - consent) they would be <Anonymous-3>.

If the user interface is split into input and output frames, this distinction would be more obvious, as you could easily see your own identifier too.

Why repair what's broken? Use IRC on Lulznet

Use IRC on Rizon.

>>209
>>210
It's not anonymous

>>211
Neither is the forced_anon chat, strictly speaking. The Anonymouses I talked to might not have names, but they are distinct in matters of language style and personal facts.

>>208
For fuck's sake, do you not understand the purpose of this project?? It's not just to create some stupid 4chan chatroom! The whole point is to minimize identities by only having two people in a conversation, that each might be judged honestly and by his words' merit. I'll admit that this system isn't perfect, as >>212 points out, but I do think it's a step in the right direction.

>>212
That's good. That's how it should be. Anonymous just means there isn't a compulsory unique identifier to (a) prejudge your opinion of the person and (b) track them down afterwards.

Of course, you can optionally relinquish your anonymity within the chat, but at the start it's a completely clean slate, each time.

It's a bit like striking up a conversation with a stranger on a long train journey or flight.

Either implement a timeout on inactivity feature or the /next never gets you the same person feature. There's a faggot who left his terminal open hogging it right now, anyone who connects gets stuck with him.

>>216
Restarted with the /next feature. It won't get you the previous one. Would *never* getting a nexted person again be better? Anyway I'll add a 5 min timeout and finish the timestamp feature.

>>213
For fuck's sake, do you not understand the purpose of this project?? It's to create some stupid 4chan chatroom!


Fixed.

>>217
I think never in the same telnet session, or at least a rather long timeout

>>207
He means more than 2 people together at a time, sort of like IRC but with no names. Yes, you can't tell who's who but that's the whole point of anonymous chat. I know it might not work perfectly, but should still prove to be an interesting experience.

>>211
>>212
I think the whole idea of Anonymous chat is to do away with names completely, just like the *chan boards.

>>217
Add an optional parameter to /next that'll keep you from rejoining the same anon for a certain amount of time, e.g. /next 5 could mean disconnect from the current chatter and wait for new chatters arriving within 5 minutes before joining the same one again. Default it to something like 10 seconds.

222GET

>>221
Dickhead.

>>221
Actually, no, you are really failget.

you could also just walk around downtown with your pants off

>>224
as an alternative to forced_anon_chat?

>>225
no an implementation

and i took off my pants and felt free
the breeze blowing up me and up the canyon
far as i could see

There once was a nerd from /prog/

is your mother adolf hitler?

no, but i once had a barber named dominique

If someone says something while I'm typing it fucks up.

Thought i'd point it out.

I'm not a programmer, just a /b/tard, but I thought I'd stop by to post my opinion.

I think this is a good idea, but one-on-one is dumb.  To me, the whole point of Anonymous isn't just not having names, it's not having individual identities.  In order for this to happen, there must be many people, and there must be no way to tell who is saying what.  When you are talking to a single person, you know that everything that isn't said by you must be said by him, and as you talk you build up an image of what that person is like, thus making him no longer Anonymous.  However, if there were multiple people in a room, all with the same screename (Anonymous), you really wouldn't know who you are talking to, making things much more interesting.

Of course, having too many people in a room would make things too hectic, but having too few would make it too easy to tell who's who.  I'd guess around 12 or so people per room would be about right.  I think it'd be much better if the program just kept adding people to the same room until there were more than 12 or whatever people online.  Assuming this got popular and there were multiple rooms of people at once, you could use the same method of ditching to switch rooms if you got bored of the current room's convo; however, the software would not inform other chatters of users entering or leaving the room, nor would it display the number of people in the room at any given time.

Although come to think of it, the system I am describing is pretty close to what /b/ already is...

>>232
GTFO /prog/, we don't take kindly to your kind around here.|

Having a random number assigned as your name would make it more interesting imo because you could then reply to peoples comments in a similar way to how its done here

>>234
No way because numbers would imply a sort of rank. People would always be trying to get lower numbers. Or some childish shit like that. Maybe random words

>>234
>>235
Or each message could be given a sequential number. This would cause per-message anonymity rather than distinguishing different users.

>>236
I think >>234 and >>235 are suggesting per-message anonymity by means of random numbers/words, i.e. you wouldn't get the same number or word every time.

I think sequential numbers would be good though.  Random numbers or words would be a constant distraction and irritating, like #fortune.  Sequential numbers would also introduce GETS, which could be interesting.

>>232
That's not a bad idea, but the problem is that somewhere in those 12 you are guaranteed to have a troll or two-- which you can't simply /next away from. In fact, I think it's even MORE likely that people will troll or crapflood in that situation, because more people means more chances to be judged, and less incentive to be honest and say anything real.

>>237
"Sequential numbers would also introduce GETS, which could be interesting."
If by "interesting" you mean "flood-inducing"...

Anyway, I don't understand what purpose the numbering of messages would serve. You can already distinguish one message from the next simply by putting each one on its own line.

>>239
for referring back