|
27 Apr 01 - 08:20 PM (#450784) Subject: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jon Freeman I don't know if anyone else has had this email yet but this will affect the Concert room, possibly the Snug and maybe other rooms. Prices start at $49 per month for a maximum of 25 simultaneous users, through $89 for max 50, to $125 for a max of 100. Jon Dear Paltalk Room Arministrator squiggle-, Paltalk announces the launch of its Persistent Commercial Room Program!!. User groups conducting ANY commercial activity and ALL locked rooms hosting more than 10 simultaneous users will be required to register and pay for a Commercial Room. By creating a commercial room, you will have the opportunity to list this room under a general Paltalk category as well as under the commerce category. In addition, the room will be persistent (listed even when an admin is not present) and you will be able to serve your own banner and pop ups. Please register now by going to http://www.paltalk.com/paltalk/index19.html. Thank you. Paltalk Team
|
|
27 Apr 01 - 08:25 PM (#450787) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Morticia Bugger, sounds like there isn't much choice there, doesn't it? |
|
27 Apr 01 - 08:33 PM (#450790) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: bigchuck Funny, I haven't gotten it yet. Maybe if we stop using locked rooms at all, we won't have to worry. After all, we are not running any commercial rooms AFAIK. (depends on definitions, of course. Sandy |
|
28 Apr 01 - 05:56 AM (#450956) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Tyke It also sounds as if even when the room is locked big brother is listening. Also don't we have a rule about closing the room when the Admin is not present? I notice the word persistent used! Have we any record of how many times and with how many Mudcater's using the rooms? Also just how many rooms do we have! There seems little point in paying out money to keep a room open that is not in use while opening another. I'm also a supporter of The Pay to Play No Way UK Campaign supported by the Musicians Union. Perhaps a rethink is in order to lock or not and decide on how many rooms do we need that are locked. I have a feeling that anyone using an unlocked room is going to have to listen to or read a lot of expletives. My sympathies are with the Administrators of those Rooms already! Perhaps a discussion on Paltalk on just how short of money they may or may not be in an unlocked room is in order. I can't see that helping to convince people to pay for banner free site. It would also seem to me that The Mudcater's have promoted Paltalk for free in the past! Do they really want to risk losing this valuable international recruiting Aid. I'm posting a thread HAVE YOU INSTALED PALTALK? It may be possible for you to use the numbers of Mudcater's that they are about to loose. will be enough to convince them to remove the charges that they are asking for! |
|
28 Apr 01 - 08:04 AM (#450981) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Banjer Unfortunately it seems to be part of the current trend. Many sites that up to now were free are charging for their services. Our outher recent disapointment was when Photoloft started charging. I changed to Photopoint and be dammned if two weeks later they started a yearly fee thing also! (I went with theirs because their site had many more features than did the other one) |
|
28 Apr 01 - 08:12 AM (#450986) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Dave (the ancient mariner) I dont think a user fee for Paltalk is worth it. If they offer more services for a small fee I would consider paying a very small user fee. Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
28 Apr 01 - 08:25 AM (#450993) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: John Hardly Funny, It's a service I WOULD pay for if I could get it to work satisfactorily. I never enjoyed my experience with mudcat more than when I was regularly hearing and sharing MUSIC with you all. |
|
28 Apr 01 - 08:28 AM (#450995) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: kendall I have two words for them, one of them is not very nice. |
|
28 Apr 01 - 08:50 AM (#451004) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: katlaughing That seems pretty steep and unfair. They make it sound as if we are all COMMERCIAL entities. I can see that for a company to teleconference this way, the fee would be small and the service invaluable. Too bad they don't think along the terms of a sliding fee scale for nonprofits or something. So I take it any open room will still be free? I think they will lose a lot of the good people who choose to monitor a little more closely; people who are doing it like we are, for the love of music or whatever. kat |
|
28 Apr 01 - 09:19 AM (#451016) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jon Freeman OK, having read so far, a few of my thoughts: I am concerned about Paltlaks current push for charging which seems to coincide with Firetalk going - I think Paltalk have a monopoly now and can pretty much do what they like and with (I believe) rates for banner ads falling, I doubt if we will have free voice chat for long. I agree with kat about the price being steep and I do not think that such rooms should have been priced as commercial rooms - I think the case for different scales is a good one. I wish to correct one observation made in this thread: It was said we have gained a few recruits - yes we have but these recruits have come almost, if not entirely from meetings in open rooms (either through Mudcat open rooms like the song circle, or by Mudcatters getting to visit people in open rooms and inviting these people to a closed room) - unless of course people were clever enough to guess the password. Anyway, that (and my biggest reason for favouring open rooms) aside, it is a worry. Jon |
|
28 Apr 01 - 10:08 AM (#451041) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jon Freeman I knew I'd missed something else out: Tyke, the number of Mudcatters using Paltalk would be a drop in the ocean to them - we probably number say about 50 in hundreds of thousands - besides that, they don't even appear concerned about the % of potential Mac users there are... Jon |
|
28 Apr 01 - 10:13 AM (#451048) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Tyke It is my hope Jon that the Have you Installed Paltalk thread will. show that Mudcater's are bringing business to Paltalk and not the other way round. If mudcat was a commercial site I would suggest that they should pay us to open a room. Paltalk may or may not have sent us some welcome new Mudcater's. But even if it has it is because of our wonderful Mudcater's and the benefits of being a Mudcater! I think that Paltalk will find there is more to gain by keeping our Locked Room's Free and well organised. You only have to listen to some of the rubbish in other chat area's to realise that! Should Paltalk decide not to value the quality of our Mudcat Room's then there is in my view little hope of them staying in business long term! Rooms like Younger Girls For Older Men Etc. Which can be and have been used by Paedophiles I have no doubt having received (and quite rightly) some very bad press in the UK there days numbered. It may or may not be able to put a stop such chat rooms but I doubt that any respectable company would wish to place pop up advertisements in such rooms. Paltalk should value the way our rooms are monitored I know I do! |
|
28 Apr 01 - 11:03 AM (#451067) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Naemanson I would pay for the service IF the sound quality were high enough to justify it. However, it isn't, at least on my end. We have some very talented people with beautiful voices and very precise instrumental ability. We enjoy sharing our music. But I find I have to guess at the total experience because the system does not transmit the full sound of our performers. There is a jerkiness to the sound, the quality (which I admit may be PARTIALLY due to the quality of my equipment) is poor, the stream is interrupted and we occasionally get booted out for no reason. (For general information I am using a cable modem, not a phone line.) Not worth it! |
|
28 Apr 01 - 11:16 AM (#451073) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: kendall The reception has always been piss poor. It was unacceptable when it was free, so, I sure as hell wouldn't PAY for it! When I got that notice about paying, I dumped it. I reiterate, fuck 'em. |
|
28 Apr 01 - 12:30 PM (#451091) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Tyke Sorry Jon I was typing out my last thread as you posted! I'm a bit slow at Typing and spell checking. You maybe right and that Paltalk will consider us very small fry! However you must never underestimate the Power of the consumer. In the UK it was consumer power that forced the UK Banks to remove the charges for using ATM machines. The whole country was nearly brought to a stop last year over the Price of Petrol and Diesel. So here are some questions If Paltalk do not care about the customers should we still use their service? How many other Paltalk Rooms will this change affect? How many people who have just been asked to pay for a pop up and Banner Free access to Paltalk are going to like Paltalk closing Quality Rooms? Or Pay for access in future? If we did pay for a locked room how many why would want see the 24 hour a day pop UP's and banners that people are paying not to see? How would Paltalk like this discussion to be in an open room on Paltalk. If it was organised so that the maximum number of Paltalk users from Mudcat (and other room administrators who could be invited to take part) all met for the possibly the worlds first international virtual protest March on a given Day and time? (submit sugestions for a good name for the room here please.One that will get the message across and bring even more people into the room.) If Paltalk have now got a Monopoly on this kind of site then surly as consumers (if you pay or if you do not pay you are a consumer by viewing there Pop UP's) there must be some organisation to give protection to us the consumer. Please do not get too despondent I still sing some of the 60's protest songs even it they still seem to fall on deaf ears. I can't wait to see how many Mudcater's we could invite to protest on Paltalk. The Mudcat Snug may be down the list with 10 to 15 Caters. But a well organised crowed Room should get the Virtual Protest March to the top of the list and Noticed. Now how did that song go? We shall not! We shall not! We shall not pay a fee………………
|
|
28 Apr 01 - 12:57 PM (#451107) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Tyke Come gather round Paltalk were ever you are and you'll find that the mudcaters around you have blown. Purchasing Power and protesters have gown and the swear words around you are rageing....... Well you get the idea! This could get silly! |
|
28 Apr 01 - 01:01 PM (#451113) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: katlaughing Tyke, I lyke your thinking on this! How about Free Forum Discussion on Paltalk Charges/Changes? |
|
28 Apr 01 - 01:16 PM (#451127) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jon Freeman Tyke, I hadn't expected the conversation to take the direction it has but even with something as small as quality live rooms, a sense of perspective is needed. Take a look at this website which is for the open live "unplugged" rooms - it may be a bit of an eye-opener. Jon |
|
28 Apr 01 - 03:07 PM (#451190) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Tyke Yes it is an eye opener! I'm a bit of a sceptic when it comes to something for nothing, being from Yorkshire Tha Noo's We have a saying if tha niver gets owt for nowt and if tha dose tha must keep it to thee sen! This site makes me wonder if they are making money by promoting MP3 players? I'm not really up to speed on the MP3 situation. But I did receive a link to my web site request from an Artist who wanted his site to be featured on my Rombalds Mummers site. I took a look at his site and apart from the fact that it did not seem to have anything to do with mumming. It seemed to be commercial in that he was selling his MP3 recordings. It even stated how much he had earned so far selling said recordings over the internet. So it was for both those reasons I did not give him a link to my web site. Sorry I'm rambling the point is that Live and Unplugged looks, to me, to be to be commercial and using open Paltalk rooms for obvious reasons. Where the Mudcat is none commercial and requires a locked Paltalk Rooms where "Folk Songs" (what ever they are! Let's not get into that! Lets call them songs that are not going to make you rich!) So this eye opener for me is yet another reason why we should point out to Paltalk that we are not a commercial room and should not be described as such! Perhaps Mudcat would be commercial if it charged people wishing to enter a locked room. You could do this by charging people wanting to get in the room for the password. In a virtual sing around that would be Pay to Play which as I have said I am against! So do we want a commercial open room with Artists popping in and selling there downloaded MP3 Recordings? Or do we just want a nice quite snug room where we can sit and share each other's music whilst also having the opportunity to chat to friends and fellow Mudcater's? Personally I prefer the latter! Even if the snug room is open too late for me to sing in it due to the 5 young children a sleep in the house next door! |
|
28 Apr 01 - 04:11 PM (#451221) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jon Freeman Tyke, I guess it is to much to ask you to believe that a number of people including mudcatters have found that open formats work well and that part of the fun has been meeting new people and getting to know them and this has happened to such an extent that one of the regualars decided to host a site as part of this effort. I didn't want this to turn into an open/closed or other paltalk argument but quite frankly some of the comments regarding new recruits/flag flying, quality and now the purpose of the unplugged rooms has been outrageous. The sad reality is that while a number of mudcatters have remained blinkered in closed rooms (others have enjoyed both), a small community of people who love live music and wanted to share with others has started to develop. It would have been nice if all the mudcatters had chosen to be part of it. Jon |
|
28 Apr 01 - 06:48 PM (#451287) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Tyke Jon I have only put forward my view as to the consequences of having to operate in an unlocked room. My sympathies have already gone out to anyone having to administer an open room. You are only now making it clear that you favour an unlocked room. That is your prerogative however to refer to others who may not share your view as blinkered is just not on! It's just bulling tactics! which do little to impress me! I'm really not all that interested in blowing my own trumpet as a singer I'll leave others to do that! But let it suffice to say that. I have the ability to perform and entertain in any situation be it a closed Folk Club, or in a noisy Public Bar. Yes and I have gained enjoyment with or with out payment in both situation's. I sometimes get a real buzz when I silence the whole Pub especially if I am performing acoustically. I have a choice of were I wish to perform there are no shortages of Live Venues in England. Please respect the rights of mudcat users to state their preference. To meet in the Snug for a wind down song and a chat with other Mudcatters or to perform in front of anyone who's musical taste may not be as diverse. There are some very fine singers out there who because of stage fright would never have performed if was not for the more intimate quiet respectful venue! Like the Sfnug! Where they can learn how to deliver a song! Before launching themselves on the general Public! This I thought was a discussion forum so I will respect your support of open rooms. These open rooms will at the moment continue to operate as normal. I have no wish to close them you are still free to visit them. It is the closed rooms that are under threat lets so just see how many Mudcater's would still prefer the freedom to choose. Before they can only choose the Off Switch! Its not a matter of flag waving Jon it's a matter of finding some way so that Mudcater's can still enjoy both! Also what I was suggesting was protest discussion in an open room! I did think that other Paltalk users would benefit from some consumer power! I see no reason not to let Paltalk realise the disquiet amongst its user's or have the rights to free speech gone the same way as counting all the votes in the Land of the Free! George Clarke PS. Yes I know there is no F in Snug! That's what I am trying to tell you! See I told you your starting to miss it already! |
|
28 Apr 01 - 07:09 PM (#451290) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jon Freeman Tyke, sorry lets try again. Suggested here: That the Snug has contributed (much) in recruiting/flag flying - BULLSHIT - no-one who has not spoken to anyone with the key enters even to find out what the room is about. That the Snug offers a quality not avialible elesewhere and presumably not availible in open rooms BULLSHIT vist other rooms and find out. That the unplugged rooms are commercial BULLSHIT - no further comment needed. Where I will agree and you will find nothing to the contary above is that the Snug does provide an atmosphere in which some people feel more comfortable. I Make no objections to people's choices but I do object to the narrow minded outright lies in this thread that have a) Suggested the snug has been an important general service when it has been a closed private party and b) tried in the process of defence of this suggested other rooms have vested interests. Lets try and discuss whether the Paltalk prices are reasonable or whether better options are available. Jon |
|
28 Apr 01 - 07:15 PM (#451294) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Amergin Tyke, people who have adminstered open rooms...(well actually I am speaking only for me) tend to actually enjoy it...especially when there are others on hand to help when it gets really busy....but then I am only speaking for me... |
|
28 Apr 01 - 07:23 PM (#451296) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Noreen Jon, you may choose not to believe this but it seems to me that you are the one who is turning this thread into another "open/closed or other paltalk argument " by taking other people's points personally. Surely what we should be doing is finding the best way to keep live online music going for mudcatters, and not let PalTalk divide us? Noreen |
|
28 Apr 01 - 07:25 PM (#451299) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Amergin Noreen...I think it may be time for us to hide under the tables once more.... |
|
28 Apr 01 - 07:27 PM (#451300) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Matt_R I avoid the Mudcat/Paltalk Civil War by staying out of the room!! |
|
28 Apr 01 - 07:41 PM (#451306) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jon Freeman No Noreen, my aim was a general balanced view of a real situation. Should I not correct others? Jon |
|
28 Apr 01 - 07:49 PM (#451312) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Noreen No wars Matt, and I'm not hiding under no table, Nathan (or... NO!) :0) Jon, I think your first point in the 7.09pm post must have come from a misreading of Tyke's words: It would also seem to me that The Mudcater's have promoted Paltalk for free in the past! Do they really want to risk losing this valuable international recruiting Aid. (i.e. mudcatters recruiting users for PalTalk, rather than vice versa). I can't see what else you could be referring to? Help me out here, Jon. Noreen |
|
28 Apr 01 - 07:56 PM (#451313) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jon Freeman Yes, Noreen, I will agree that post was based on a missreading. Jon |
|
28 Apr 01 - 09:09 PM (#451336) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Tyke That's Great amergin its quite a relief to know that it not going to be all hard work if Mudcat just has unlocked rooms. I'm now convinced that there must be some good ones out there as I am convinced that there are so many more Bad ones. Please excuse my poor attempt at both praising and sympathising with the great jobs that administrators do! My question is are you happy that the Choice of Mudcater's being able to meet in a room that is locked and set aside just for Mudcater's will no longer be their? If we do little to prevent it's closure due to the high running costs of such a room! The sense of belonging has a lot of appeal to many Mudcater's and I know many support the idea of Mudcat only Gatherings rather than to link them to other festivals. However that has never kept them away from the other festivals they also like to mix and meet new people who are of like mind. I have just sent personal messages to some Mudcater's inviting them to join in this discussion (including your good self). It will be interesting to hear their views. Many have already stated that they have installed Paltalk because of the recommendation of other Mudcater's. Let's see just how happy they are now that Paltalk seems to be able to move the goal posts just as and when they please! Just because they have a monopoly! PS. Just read the threads regarding miss reading my replies. Not my fault! not your fault! I'm the one that's Dyslexic. I'm a lot better at talking than writing any day come to think of it! It's better for people to see my face when I talking then they can see the twinkle in my eyes. So they know that I'm not upset or getting too uptight. Jon I agree you have misread my comments. I have read it again! and how I read it is! It looks to me as if! And at this point I was referring to the web site that you had directed me to! not that each and every unlocked room! was commercial. I went on to point out how an unlocked room could become commercial. now at this point I had miss read the letter from Paltalk! Had I not done so I would have pointed out that songs with a refrain of By Broom Bessom's buy them when there new. According to Paltalk would POSSIBLY (I Repeat Possibly) constitute the room being commercial would we then have to pay a fee! Well that's how I read their letter but then again I'm dyslexic. But I'm sure that what it said "User groups conducting ANY commercial activity and ALL locked rooms hosting more than 10 simultaneous users will be required to register and pay for a Commercial Room." Ok my example of the Song "Buy Broom Bessoms" maybe over the top but just how are you going to stop singer song writers etc from entering your room and verbally advertising their new CD just before they sing it! Or advertising their next gig? I think I'm just pointing out the need to negotiate with Paltalk and taking on board your own view that they think that we are too small to worry about. So if my above comments are valid then we could receive plenty of support from all the other rooms locked or unlocked. At least you should have something in writing preventing The Mudcat being landed with a Bill.
|
|
28 Apr 01 - 09:55 PM (#451351) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: IvanB I do believe we should let the Paltalk people know our opinions of their latest moneymaking scheme. However, I think Jon's right in guessing that Mudcatters don't form a sizable enough user group to sway Paltalk's thinking.
As far as the open vs. closed room argument, I can understand that we have members who prefer the relative 'safety' of the locked room. But I must state unequivocally that, as a Mudcat member, I would hate to see a room bearing the Mudcat name having to 'raise the drawbridge' because the tenth person had entered the room.
There are many safeguards available to both administrators and participants of open rooms. Administrators have the ability to remove mikes of those using the voice chat abusively. And all participants have the ability to ignore an abuser completely, merely by right-clicking on the offender's name in the room list and clicking 'Ignore in Group' in the drop down that appears. Many of the open rooms on Paltalk encourage live singing vs. karaoke and a number of these are well-administered, making them a pleasure in which to participate. In fact, my main disappointment with some of them is that I have to 'get in line' to perform, often with 6 or 7 performers ahead of me.
Please don't construe my post as an argument re: locked/open rooms. Although I prefer the open room for the diverse performances I've been privileged to hear, I understand the wish of some to start their performance 'careers' in an environment where everyone is known to them. My main concern, as stated above, is that Mudcat's name not be associated with a room which, by its very nature, is limited to the first ten to show up. And Tyke, I doubt that Paltalk could bill Mudcat for any alleged commercial activity in a room. Their only alternative would be to request that the room's owner sign it up as a commercial room or have his/her ownership revoked. It's evident to me that Paltalk is going to have to at least break even on its service or it'll go the way of many others on the Web. I'm disappointed with their tactics, but I can understand the need that drives them. |
|
28 Apr 01 - 10:03 PM (#451356) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: John Routledge Have just left a wonderful wonderful night in the Mudcat Snug. It is unlikely that the atmosphere would have been created in an open room. GB |
|
28 Apr 01 - 10:35 PM (#451372) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Tyke IvanB I only found out about Paltalk though The Mudcat I no expert on it's use so thanks for the input I learn something new every day. I also can understand the need that drives them and I have no problem with Paltalk making money. I just think Paltalk need steering in the right direction. I have also accept Jon's view that we are just a small part of Paltalk. However doubt if we are the only group who are less than impressed with their money making scheme. I am only pointing out the possibility of using organised consumer power on mass! It might be easier just ignore any demands for payments but it would be more fun to get Paltalk to change its mind. |
|
28 Apr 01 - 10:51 PM (#451380) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jon Freeman My worry remains the same - where is Paltalk going to stop trying to push? Re the current one, I have no difficulty in drawing a distinction between a room that is open to anyone wandering through Paltalk visiting, perhaps as a new user finding something they like, and a party setting up a private room for thier own pleasure and although I would prefer to see all things free, I would not be too concerned about seeing functions where only those invited are allowed entry being charged for that priveledge. I do however consider their grouping rooms such as the snug as being commercial and the assosicated rates as being unreasonable and it is another charge being raised. I said before I think Paltalk have a monopoly and I believe that to be true. I have done a little research and have found that MPlayer.com has got some thing going with someone who are offering a subscription based service. Can anyone come up with any other alternatives to present Paltalk with if there was a challenge/ boycott? Jon |
|
29 Apr 01 - 12:08 AM (#451406) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jon Freeman Oh and Tyke, I should and will say sorry here as my missreading of your post (reading it as suggesting that a closed room had done much in the way of recruiting for Mudcat or Paltalk) set off the anger in this thread - no excuse for not reading but the sort of flag waving/intoduction was always one big reason for me favouring and in fact starting off the original MC Paltalk room as open. I also guess Noreen is at least indirectly right in saying personal - it still hurts me that we tried to discuss the open/closed matter in an open way on several occasions and the concensus always came down on open - till the snug oipened (quite innoncently with good intentions from Dave/Nynia) where complaints about 2 rooms running concurrently caused a move to alternate without even discussion. Kind of hard to take really and I flew - and there were rows - I still feel shit on by those who only voiced an opinion until that point. Guess I learned who my friends in MC really were then. Oh well, not worried about winning or loosing - never even wanted control - I've found better (most of the time) things for me in Paltalk. The biggest shame for MC and folk is the snug has mostly been operated on UK late night times whereas things used to run on much later with more willing admins availible who got out not because of difficulties in running open rooms but because of rows in MC, prefering one format to the other, finding new friends in other rooms, - a couple of bad handlings of situations by me (one in MC whith me missunderstanding Noreen and one regarding Jason - the stalker) didn't help the open song circle... Jon |
|
29 Apr 01 - 01:21 AM (#451436) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Mark Clark It's my opinion that the song circles and concerts on PalTalk are an amazing use of the Internet and one that should continue in some formal way. The idea of a world-wide song circle in which like-minded people from many different countries and cultures can participate is revolutionary. It seems like the sort of thing for which one could find grant money somewhere. Perhaps an arts grant or the sponsorship of some university or maybe even the U.N. The idea would make a good news article in the right publication. I'd like to see a "Mudcat Auditorium" or something like that have persistence on PalTalk and be restricted to users who have logged in here at the Cat to get the most recent password. I don't want to restrict access to the password, I just want participants to come to the Cat once in a while to find out what it is today. I also seem to recall that the Java language and environment contains the needed multi-media support to create the kind of world-wide auditorium we need. We'd have to write it ourselves of course but when we finished we could include Macintosh, Amiga and UNIX users as well as Windows users. I doubt that much band width is required to host it for the number of participants we have. I would think that the bandwidth needed for Mudcat Radio would be more than enough although I could be wrong. Let's find a way to keep the capability going. - Mark |
|
29 Apr 01 - 01:46 AM (#451450) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jon Freeman Mark, I believe you are right in suggesting that Java does contain the support needed to achieve that. I'm not sure on hosting - Paltalk seems to set a minimum of a 28.8K connection - do you multiply that by users to get a rough guide to the host requirements? And can you write such a program? I managed a working Java text chat (or it worked on IE) but voice is well out of my experience. Jon |
|
29 Apr 01 - 05:10 AM (#451480) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: nutty Not having received a personal message I had tended to ignore this subject but it does appear that it now needs addressing. Like many others I survived the Paltalk/Hearme debate and made my committment to Paltalk, which I woukld like to see continue. Having read all the info on the Paltalk site , I can't find anything that refers to groups like ours - The new rooms (with charges) are being specifically aimed at commercial activity. Consequently (IMHO) the first step must be to clarify this with Paltalk (eg what measures will be taken to ensure that no more than ten people enter a locked room etc) and when this is done - formulate a plan of action. |
|
29 Apr 01 - 05:44 AM (#451484) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: GUEST,JTT I tried Paltalk a few times, but then it started putting up those popups asking me to gamble. I hate this - it's like waving bottles of whiskey in front of alcoholics, only worse, since a gambler can just reach for the credit card and *poufff*, the house is gone and the family out on the street. Yuck. But tell me this and tell me no more. What's the difference between Paltalk and HearMe? Couldn't Mudcat's singsongs default back to HearMe? Or is it something different? |
|
29 Apr 01 - 05:46 AM (#451485) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: nutty After the above posting I decided to go to Paltalk Help to see if the "locked room " situation could be clarified and basically - it can't. The situation is that even the Paltalk admin don't know how it's going to work. They "think" that it will be the room owners responsibility to see that no more than 10 people enter a room that is not being paid for but could not say what would happen if more than that number enter It would seem that this has not been thought out particularly well and should be questioned by everyone at every opportunity both through Paltalk on-line help and by e-mail. |
|
29 Apr 01 - 06:58 AM (#451494) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Noreen JTT- HearMe was closing down, or becoming unavailable for our sort of usage anyway, which is why we moved to PalTalk. It was basically the same sort of facility as PalTalk. |
|
29 Apr 01 - 07:40 AM (#451501) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Tyke My thanks go to Noreen, Jon for pointing out your miss reading. I must admit I was a little confused she also sent me a message that although did not go into any detail was enough for me to work out why this is such a sensitive issue. I must admit it's a bit of a worry as one of the downsides to my dyslexia are the problems that I have proof reading my own writing. A missed word can change my whole meaning! So I'm going to read this carefully before posting it. We both seem to be on the same side Jon your last posting 05.46 AM explained that. Its all very well someone else saying "F*** Em" but it dose little to save all the hard work that has gone into setting up the Mudcat Rooms by yourself Jon. Opened or Locked it is Paltalk who would seem (to me) to be breaking a contracted with all its (not just Mudcater's) the people using the Paltalk service. Are there any Mudcat Lawyers who could look at the situation for free to make the position clear. The best solution long term could be that the Mudcat Café has its own conferencing text and Voice facility. That would also support Apple Mac users! I have no idea just what that would involve from any angle cost, work etc. but at least in setting one up we could put in place some sort of guarantee. But for now we just have to decide if its worth the extra effort getting Paltalk to take some notice that the majority are not HAPPY! With this turn of events! I had not even thought about the temptations that there pop up gambling add could place on people. I do however agree with you that it would be better not to have to look at them! Would paying for the service so that Paltalk would remove all adds solve this? Or would Paltalk be allowed to reinstate them, due to their need to generate cash moving the Goal Posts again, at some later date? There should be some watchdog to place some restrictions on Paltalk somewhere to guarantee some protection to its consumers. I still favour consumer power lets organise a protest Room on a given time and date. Inviting all Paltalk users to let their feeling known on mass to Paltalk. I could be fun! So dust out your protest songs and Rap's is what I say! PS Hi nutty! I hope that the Paltalk Help room is not like some in the UK that charge! They seem to not only be of little help in putting right problems that may have been caused by their company in the first place. This just helps them to make money out of there own errors! |
|
29 Apr 01 - 08:49 AM (#451519) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: nutty There's no charge on Paltalk - the help is accessed in the same way as other groups are :- just click on GROUPS and then on PALTALK HELP. |
|
29 Apr 01 - 09:25 AM (#451530) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Tyke Thats good to know nutty! Cheers |
|
29 Apr 01 - 10:57 AM (#451548) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jeri I have PalTalk because there isn't anything else. Frankly, the pop-ups drive me nuts. I wouldn't mind if they didn't keep trying to dump cookies on my computer or otherwise interfere with use. (I have MSIE set to ask me to accept cookies.) The UCE (Unsoliceted Commercial E-mail) they send me is a pain, too. I've been told there are free programs available to block pop-ups. I'll look, and if I find anything, I'll post something. The rows over public/private rooms have soured me quite a bit on Mudcat Song Circles. Not the creation and existance of the rooms but what I saw as political maneuvering on the part of some and a later refusal to discuss it - "shut up, I don't want to hear it." I don't want to discuss this myself, because people have all made up their minds, and frankly, I have as well. What has happened is in the past, but will forever influence my feelings about the rooms and about people. Back to our regularly scheduled discussion: I would dump PalTalk in an instant if something uncommercial were available, no matter how simple it is. I might even pay a reasonable amount for it. At this point, HearMe seems like a very happy memory. PalTalk have given me no reason to feel any sort of loyalty. I also strongly doubt they'll listen to what 50 or so Mudcatters think out of their thousands of members. Especially considering we take what they give and don't give anything significant back. |
|
29 Apr 01 - 01:42 PM (#451605) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: IvanB Jeri, I started looking at popup suppression programs when I stupidly upgraded Paltalk, thinking it would solve a problem I was having. I believe the Paltalk people have made their popups as offensive as possible in hopes we'll spring for the popup-free version. The program I settled on is PopupKiller, a free program that's available here: The program works fine for me, but I found that Paltalk first opens an instance of IE with a Paltalk title then very quickly switches to the advertising site for whatever popup is next in line. I found that, to effectively kill all Paltalk popups, I had to capture that first window, and the only way I could do it was to have PopupKiller active on the screen when the window first appears. It took a bit of planning on my part, but I did manage it. Theoretically, PopupKiller has a facility for users to upload their suppression lists and download others' lists to avoid having to individually capture popups, but I haven't been able to make this work. Although the program is free, there is a little blurb for a $7 registration (not mandatory), so maybe the synchronize feature is only for registered users. |
|
29 Apr 01 - 06:11 PM (#451704) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Mrs.Duck My understanding is that if we use unlocked rooms there is no charge. When the debate arose regarding locked/unlocked I made it clear that I would join either but actually preferred the open rooms as it meant the possibility of non Mudcatters finding out about us and if they wished visiting the site and maybe joining. I know there have been one or two problems with nuisance visitors but if the admin is willing to deal effectively with these idiots then the room can carry on . If its a choice between paying for a locked room or getting an open one for free I can't see an arguement for paying! Unfortunately I doubt whether our protesting would have any great effect on paltalk although that doesn't mean we can't try. |
|
29 Apr 01 - 06:13 PM (#451709) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Greyeyes What Mrs Duck said. |
|
29 Apr 01 - 06:32 PM (#451729) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jon Freeman OK, shows how long it is since I looked around and I don't think I looked at this one when we switched to Paltalk, have anyone tried the Yahoo Messenger? I'm not sure if it is just me but I don't think the sound quality is as good as Paltalk although it is quite useable. There are banner ads but I have seen no flashing ones and no popups. It allows for the creation of open, locked and private rooms although it does not seem to alow the admin control Paltalk offers - not really a problem in a private room - even I would probably be in favour of a closed room without the degree of control that Paltalk had. It may well provide a good alternative if Paltalk carry on the way they look to be going and may even be worth a look now. Has anyone else come up with alternatives yet? Jon
|
|
29 Apr 01 - 06:52 PM (#451749) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Hawker I like the locked room, as it can sometimes be a real pain when an idiot visits an unlocked room, but I would rather be in an unlocked room and not pay! Paltalk may find that if they charge they will get no takers, so they will be the losers in the end anyway? I entered the room last night and realised I was No 11, I wondered if anyone would ask me to leave, no one did! Maybe we just see what happens, refuse to pay and hope no-one notices if there are a few more than 10 in a room....... Ever the optimist, Lucy |
|
29 Apr 01 - 06:56 PM (#451753) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: JudeL Why is everyone referring to paltalk as if it's the only option. When I bought a new headset a couple of weeks ago it included a disc of something called mediaring which appears to be very like paltalk - although my son installed it I haven't tried using it as there didn't seem to be much point if everyone used paltalk. It may be worth checking to see what else is available before either getting upset or committing ourselves to anything. Jude |
|
29 Apr 01 - 07:01 PM (#451757) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Greyeyes Mediaring
|
|
29 Apr 01 - 07:13 PM (#451763) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Amergin Interesting...though I am at work for the moment and unable to test it out...I'll give it a shot once I get home.... |
|
29 Apr 01 - 07:13 PM (#451764) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jon Freeman I quite agree Jude, asked in one previous post, have done some looking and I have suggested Yahoo as a possible alterative above and it would be useful if others try to come up with things too... The last time I looked at Mediaring, I seem to remember it offered PC to PC calling and I think PC to Phone but it didn't offer a multi-user voice chat or confernecing - can you check up and let us know? Jon |
|
29 Apr 01 - 07:18 PM (#451768) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Amergin Jon, I just look and it does offer voice conferencing....but I couldn't test out the quality or anything since I am at work... |
|
29 Apr 01 - 08:01 PM (#451794) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: JudeL sorry bout that, I must have been writing mine at the same time as you wrote yours . Don't know about Yahoo but greyeyes has done a blue clicky thing about mediaring. Not having got to grips with all this technology stuff I haven't yet worked out how to do things like blue clickys. Jude |
|
29 Apr 01 - 08:04 PM (#451795) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jon Freeman Sorry Jude, I should have thought: http://messenger.yahoo.com/ Jon |
|
29 Apr 01 - 08:07 PM (#451796) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jon Freeman Oh, and one for Mark Clark: http://www.java.sun.com/products/java-media/jmf/index.html Jon |
|
29 Apr 01 - 08:17 PM (#451801) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jeri Thanks for the info on PopupKiller, Ivan. I'll have to check it out. As for choices, I think it's easy to forget how quickly things can change in cyberspace. One of these days when I have some time, I'll have to go exploring... |
|
29 Apr 01 - 08:19 PM (#451802) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Tyke My thanks to IvanB directing my to a pop up killer. It seems to work well. You can find his link to it on one of his contributions to this thread. I still read Paltalk as wanting to charge for any commercial use in room's weather locked or unlocked. So I do not think just switching to using unlocked rooms is the answer. I listened into one room tonight and the administrator signed of with a nice little speech. Which included a reminder to every one to spread Vegimite on their toast! Could he just be a fan of Vegimite or has he got some sort of sponsor ship deal? (Vegimite is the UK version of Marmite I do not know if there is the equivalent in the states. I was once told that it was not available in some countries) Perhaps if we could find a sponsor for the Mudcat Rooms on Paltalk?
|
|
29 Apr 01 - 08:37 PM (#451808) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: GUEST,17 Tyke, You really have no idea about business do you? Who's going to sponser a disparate, worldwide diffused group of at most 100 people? |
|
29 Apr 01 - 09:18 PM (#451828) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: momnopp I have only used yahoo! one-on-one and it's mediocre in my (limited) experience. As for free filtering programs: try out webwasher : blickie I haven't been in Paltalk (or the threads) in ages, but I hope that in the not too distant future I'll be able to participate in a song circle once again. I always got a kick out of telling my co-workers that I was singing with mudcatters from around the world on a Sunday evening. Cheers, JudyO |
|
29 Apr 01 - 09:22 PM (#451835) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Tyke The Sponsor Ship idea of a room was put forward as a suggestion and I thought I put a question mark at the end of it personal I'm not here to do business. But if you have a budget to spend on advertising another problem is would your products meet our approval. My own view is that if someone spent a lot of time finding a sponsor we still would have no guarantee that Paltalk would not suddenly move the goal posts again! Who are these disparate, worldwide diffused group of at most 100 people that you refer to! Guest17? |
|
29 Apr 01 - 09:27 PM (#451841) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: alison Unless Mediaring has improved VASTLY since the last time I used it.. it wouldn't work!!!!!!! it is OK for one on one conversations... but the sound quality was bad.......... Netmeeting is another one... but again I am not impressed with the sound quality........... slainte alison |
|
29 Apr 01 - 09:36 PM (#451846) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: catspaw49 Most of you haven't been on the 'Cat long enough to remember that MEDIARING was the first voice program we tried and back then it was really exciting to just hear each other but the thing was VERY limited. I'm sure they have progressed a lot since then.......Just found it kinda' humorous, like the thing has come full circle. Spaw |
|
29 Apr 01 - 09:39 PM (#451848) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jeri Tyke, I believe they're going to charge for locked rooms for more than 10 people and commercial unlocked rooms. We aren't commercial, so we should be able to use an unlocked room with no charge. I think checking out other options is still a reasonable course of action. |
|
29 Apr 01 - 10:10 PM (#451860) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Matt_R Welcome back, Judy! We've missed you! |
|
30 Apr 01 - 12:23 AM (#451906) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: jacko@nz I have no idea who Guest,17 is, but in answer to your question Tyke, I have religiously 'palled' folks in mudcat rooms for six months. I spend between three and eight hours a day, spanning a twelve hour period, seven days a week in paltalk My 'down time' largely covers UK and States day time .....less than 100 cats use the system jack aka scalliwag |
|
30 Apr 01 - 09:46 AM (#452013) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Bagpuss I don't see that there is a problem. We can use it for free if we don't mind being open. I've been in several open rooms and never had any sort of problem. If you want your privacy strongly enough that you are prepared to pay for it, then do so. I don't, so I won't. Paltalk is providing a service for us, and still giving us the option of using it free under certain restrictions. Am I missing something? Is there really something to get our knickers in a twist about here? Please tell me. Bagpuss |
|
30 Apr 01 - 10:37 AM (#452066) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Grab I'm not sure about Geordie's assertion that there wouldn't be the same atmosphere in a non-Mudcat room. There's often other groups which acquire a few musicians, and then as more musicians log on, they flick through the groups to find which ones are good and stay with the good ones. IIRC, Friday night was an unofficial Mudcat meeting in a completely open room, and there was some fine music on. I don't spend as much time on Paltalk as most of you, I guess, but I'd rather see open rooms. So long as the startup text spells out exactly what's going on (ie. concert with no interruptions, or live music only) then admins can do the biz quite well enough. And there's the possibility of getting new members who've never heard of Mudcat b4. But maybe this is a "religious" debate. I will agree that the sound isn't great, but we're not really using it for what it's designed for - it's designed for speech, not music. It'd be nice to see a Paltalk v2.0 which had some optimisation for music as well, but anyway. In the meantime, $9.99 isn't that much for a year's ad-free subscription, but I would draw the line at the megabucks room subscriptions. Looking at it from a different angle though, what does it indicate about the company? Sounds to me like this all means they're running out of venture capital, and might go under without this kind of stuff. Would we rather have open rooms, or would we rather not have the service? Or can anyone find a better alternative service? Graham. |
|
30 Apr 01 - 01:29 PM (#452223) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: John Routledge Hi Grab I am not suggesting that the atmosphere in a closed room is better - just different. I enjoy open rooms also and love the variety and quality which can be found there. I sing less often in open rooms not because I feel intimidated in any way by strangers but that I find the choice of appropriate unaccompanied song quite difficult in many open rooms. My hang-up not the rooms fault*BG* No doubt Paltalk will get their act together and we will know our fate. Geordie(Happy Rooms For All)Broon. |
|
30 Apr 01 - 01:39 PM (#452231) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jon Freeman Bagpuss, the biggest worry as far as I am concerned is that Paltalk have been moving or trying to the goal posts and stepping up their annoyances lately. Also, I don't think that it is any co-incidence that much of this step up came at the time Firetalk shut down. Grab's suggestion of them running short of capital is another possibility. Either way, although thier services still suit me, I am a little concerned about the longer term provision of any free services from Paltalk and I do think it is wise to consider possible alternatives at this stage for that reason. Re: The paying for the private rooms, some may be willing to pay but the rates Paltalk are asking are steep and I would guess be far to much for the usage they get. The Concert room sometimes exceeds 25 users so to keep it locked under these terms, it would be neccessary to pay $89 per month for a room that is used once a week for about an hour. The cost for the snug while still expensive, would be more reasonable as it probably averages 2-3 hours usage per day and rarely exceeds 10 users so I would guess a limit of 25 would be safe. Again it is quite possible that there are cheaper (preferably free) options available for private events. Grab, I learned fairly on in Paltalk that it pays in an open room to spell out in the welcome text what the room is about, as in example, I state my room is for live folk and blues, any one can join in and explain (because of past missunedestandings) that live does not include karaoke - it seems to work most of the time without the need of action by an admin. Re other musicians, there is a fair amount of crossover between the participents unplugged rooms and the Mudcat (official or unnoficial) rooms and it is quite common to get a few of the non-catters who like folk or more commonly blues to stop by and perform - there are several excellent blues players around. It can also be quite a bonus having them when things are quiet as they help keep a rooom going at a period when maybe only one or two catters are around. I have noticed what tends to happen is that after the snug has closed, some catters sometimes come on line, find no folk/blues and dissapear. The Song Circle for example, has on several occasions gone on from 11pm to 6am GMT or later simply because of outside support keeping it going through the quiet patches where an admin would probably otherwise have given up and gone to bed or elsewhere and one which certainly contributed to giving Mudcatters far more oppertuninty to just drop in when they liked and find something. Jon
|
|
30 Apr 01 - 03:31 PM (#452316) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Tyke Do you think it be a help Jon if when using an open room for the Mudcat admin open a thread in mudcat to:- a) Say that a room was now open! b) To invite Mudcat members to identify themselves as Mudcater's to the Admin and or other Caters in that thread. I'm not suggesting favouring Mudcater's for special treatment in the song circle! I would just help identify the users of the room. I noticed that Yahoo has the facility to click on the name of the person in the room and bring up that persons Profile and send to send personal messages. That did seemed to me to be useful.
|
|
30 Apr 01 - 04:29 PM (#452345) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: nutty George - if you check the threads covering the discussions that took place when Paltalk was set up , you will realise that such issues were discussed at length |
|
30 Apr 01 - 04:38 PM (#452349) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Jon Freeman Tyke, a) is already done by a number of admins in open and locked rooms, usually toghether with a couple of refreshes. I believe it is a great help. b) I don't know bur I think it could be handy if a Mudcatter new to Paltalk did send a text message to the Admin or gave some indication in the general text. I think it also helps if those like me who use a different name on Paltalk to Mudcat introduce themselves with their Mudcat name when they meet someone with a Mudcat name they recognise in Paltalk for the first time. Jon |
|
30 Apr 01 - 04:47 PM (#452358) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Tyke Thats good to know Jon It will be nice for me to know who's in the room the next time I pay it a vist. Thanks for the info Jon. |
|
30 Apr 01 - 05:16 PM (#452383) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Mrs.Duck And of course there was the suggestion of using MC in front of the name to indicate Mudcat hence Geoff and I became the MCDUCKS |
|
30 Apr 01 - 05:38 PM (#452399) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Tyke Clever! I didn't know that ether or is it either. I just thought the Mac's (MC) were to keep all the rain we been getting off the Ducks :-) Mrs Duck |
|
02 May 01 - 02:54 PM (#454031) Subject: RE: BS: Paltalk Room Charges From: Tyke Moor refreshing than one of the threads this! |