By feedback from group commands, would that include killed/killed by messages from group members? While I would want to be able to reduce my enemies ability to know if I was online, I wouldn't want to sacrifice other, more functional feedback.

I would be down with a setting that turned off private messaging feedback. Including group messaging in this seems a bit overkill-ish.

User selection is always a good option...

actually strat, we could add another feedback option X hasn't logged on in over 90 days, that would take care of most of the spoofs, without giving away the stealth side of things.

Ultimately having as much of it user controlled as possible is the best option in my opinion.

I like this idea. I say eliminate all feedback and just have a message to tell you "That character Doesn't Exist" or something if you screw up the spelling.

I'm not the decision-maker on this, but, as a user of the chat system, I prefer Maalik's solution; does anyone have a strong objection to it?

No, it sounds great to me.

That sounds like a good solution from my point of view. Make it apply to private messages and all invitations, and I think that should do it. If someone is in your group, or if someone in your group kills someone who is trying to be stealthy, this shouldn't impact it at all. After all, in that case either they're in your group (and thus you know they're online), or someone in your group has seen them, in which case you know they're online. Simple.

Sounds like a good solution to me as well. Willis and Maalik have the right ideas.

Also, Maalik, VPR is not against the suggestion here. A few individual pilots liked the APL (as did many players). Let's keep RP out of this forum.

That wasn't roleplaying. A couple VPR people were against the idea and I honestly didn't understand why. Don't try to police my posts.

A single VPR stated he liked the APL, and all the VPR in this post voiced support for the general idea, with some reservations about certain aspects that might have been problematic. Your solution dealt nicely with those aspects, in my mind, and it seems like the members of VPR here tend to agree. The whole VPR-CHRN loathing is getting old, especially in forums like this one.

All Vipers are ninnehs.

As long as I can disable responses for myself than I'm fine. You script whores can have your loser plugins.

Grr, that's not true, denji. I understood both Strat and Ish to be against my idea while Atice seemed to be for it. If my query for a better explanation of Strat/Ish's position in either its form or nature is seen as unduly provocative then this is unfortunate, but for whatever it's worth there was no malice or loathing in the question.

Why do we have to make an issue out of this? :(

I would do it this way: if someone is not buddied with a player, guilded with that player, grouped with that player has seen a message (public, sector, system, or private) from that player, or has seen that player on the sector list (the same as the requirements for being able to tab-complete a name) then if they were to send a message to that player it would return as "offline" but the player in question will still receive said message. I already practice this kind of radio silence in my own hunting sessions.

someone could use this Shank, to check if you were still online 30 minutes after having seen you talk last, i could see a trader doing this to decide if they want to take a shipment through grey or not. removing the pm feedback (other then for misspellings) seems to have less holes in it

I dont see where anyone has been against the idea Except a few who commented that the feedback does have a few uses. Allowing the feedback to be selectable by the receiving player seems to satisfy thier concerns.

I'm not against your idea, Maalik; I'm for it, as I understand it: a stealth command or setting that results in no feedback to users sending you messages whether you're online or not.

I liked the APL and I want it back, but I'm not in favor of exploiting msg/invite notifications to determine if someone is online. I have never done it, nor have I written plugins for other people to do it.

Or we could just get rid of the feedback altogether.

pretty much what im in agreement with ShankTank

OK, Ish. In the context of Strat saying that he preferred the /ignore solution over others I interpreted your comment about improving some of the shortcomings of /ignore to mean that you were in the same boat.

Whatever is simplest and eliminates the problem entirely.

The morons making this necessary should have their balls crushed in a garlic press, one fleshy pop at a time.