369663 - Chatzilla should "suggest" that a minimum amount of time is spent on IRC channels

Status: VERIFIED WONTFIX

(Other Applications :: ChatZilla, enhancement)

Description

[Michael Schumacher]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1
Build Identifier: 

The following situation can be witnessed all over the IRC networks:

Foo joins #channel
[hh:mm] Foo: $long_question
[hh:mm] Foo: anyone?
Foo has quit
[hh:mm] Bar: you could... *gnarf*
[hh:mm+1] Bar: *sigh*



Reproducible: Sometimes

Steps to Reproduce:
1. join any channel on any network and stay there for a while

Actual Results:  
Users of type Bar get more and more frustrated by users of type Foo.

Expected Results:  
If the user has joined a channel, typed some text and tries to leave before a certain amount of time has passed since he joined, Chatzilla doesn't allow him to quit (at least not on the first attempt) and tells him that this behaviour does not help anyone nad may be considered rude by people who were typing in their replies.

This amount should be configurable (if there is already an option like this, its could probably be enabled). More advanced users should be able to disable it.

I have to admit that this request isn't totally serious. Therefore I'm ok with it being closed as WONTFIX or INVALID, but I'd appreciate a short reasoning about why it is closed, preferably something a bit more verbose than "Are you crazy?".

Comment 1

[Simon Howes]

Once you enter you may never leave.

Comment 2

[:Gijs (he/him)]

Imagine browsing the web.
Steps to reproduce:
1. Go to http://www.google.com
2. Search for "Annoying user interfacse".
3. Click the link google gives you ("did you mean 'Annoying user interfaces'?").
4. Omigosh, you navigated away from the page within N seconds. All hell break lose! Can't let that happen, our advertisers won't pay for it anymore that way! Stop the idiot!

Cough.

So yeah, I don't think it's a good idea. Possibilities of misspelling, autojoining a channel by mistake, and the plain "the user should be able to control the app without the app controlling the user" paradigm means this goes the WONTFIX route. Though I'm not a peer, so if you're lucky maybe someone else agrees with you instead of me.

Comment 3

[James Ross]

As much as the idea of forcing stupid users to be sane is nice, we can't have the app making arbitary decisions like this which prevent the user doing things.