1  |   Order by default

Feb 1, 2003, 6:58pm

I agree, maki and I'm sorry I suggested a totally redesigned box. I like
the size of the box in the graphic john posted but using it seems too labor
intensive to me, too much selecting just to select. I don't know much about
programming so I don't know if it would be simple to implement but I think
making the box re-sizable by the user would be ideal.

This may possibly be a redundant post, I've been messing with the settings
in my newsreader...


[View Quote]

Feb 1, 2003, 6:58pm

Having decided it's no longer fun making pks nuts I've decided to settle
down and
become a dedicated builder. Not that I never was but anyway...

I've no idea if this has been wished for but to me it seems the object
properties box
is too big. I find I spend an enormous amount of time moving it around so I
can see
what I'm doing. It would be great if it could be made re-sizable or, even
more radical,
if it could be totally redesigned a la the tools in Photoshop which is
slender and very
sexy in a geeky sort of way.

Too busy to chase boxes,
Sidris

Feb 1, 2003, 7:03pm

Sorry, I changed the settings in my newsreader which flew the outdated post
above to
the wrong thread.

I DIDN'T MEAN IT!!! TRULY! The dog ate my homework :)

[View Quote]

Feb 27, 2003, 4:17am

I accept your apology, BinaryBud.

I, for one, do not accept that there is not an amenable and probably easily
executable solution to the concerns regarding world content.

I understand Bud's point that the awards should be totally independent of
AWI for the sake of legal culpability. I agree. It's stupid for anyone to
be placed at harmful risk for the Cy awards.

What I'm about to suggest is a compromise. The compromise of greater
effort. Leave the risk and the adult content and things some may not want
to see right where they are. I don't believe the undesirable things need to
be seen at all.

Instead of having the public and judging committees go to the nominated
worlds, instead of risking exposure to undesirable content, instead of
excluding a huge, important part of AW from participation, how difficult
could it be to have the nominations, the very best, come to the judging
process? Like a Worlds Fair.

The Panama-Pacific International Exposition of 1915... An entire city of
great palaces and pavillions, courtyards, agricultural extravaganzas,
sculpture, racetracks and amusements were constructed within the ten mile
square city of San Francisco. Mega tons of iron and lumber, raw earth, even
giant dismantled portions of some of the world's largest, greatest and most
beautiful constructions were brought in from all over the globe, by ship and
rail and beast. What's more, this incredible feat of human will and
devotion to excellence was done only eight years after San Francisco had
been razed to the ground by the worst earthquakes to ever hit the North
American continent.

No shift of responsibility. All of it was responsibility accepted. And
challenge and effort. The world came to San Francisco to enjoy the very
best the world had to offer. The world came to witness POSSIBILITY.

Possibility made possible courtesy of existing technology.

So, this is my offering. Learn how to use bots, find someone who knows how,
scale down your entries and bring the best all together in one place. One
great event in an area of total acceptibility.

Make it possible courtesy of our existing technology.







[View Quote]

Feb 24, 2003, 3:01pm

Interesting that "We" rushed to publish these new rules yet the rest of the
site remains totally incomplete. This gives me a very indelible impression
that "We" is more concered with enforcement issues than the issue of
recognition of excellence for which the Cy is supposed to stand.

In their post here, why does "We" even bother to acknowledge the beauty of
adult worlds and how wonderful the people in these worlds are if these
worlds are excluded from participating in a COMMUNITY event?

If adult worlds are not recognized for their efforts and contributions by
the governors of an event which is supposed to be for all of the AW
community this would seem to me that such worlds do not even exist to the
"We" of the awards committee. Hence, the apology "We" offers for
nonexistent worlds must be absolutely insincere, just a self-defensive
conciliatory blow off. A feeble appeasement made by a bunch of
self-righteous, moralistic paranoiac prudes.

The Cy Awards, most often regarded as a self-serving sham for a very narrow
clique of inner circle elite, has finally hit rock bottom with their
self-imposed rule of non-recognition for worlds which comprise a significant
portion of the AW *community*. Instead of calling this the Cy Award, a
more apt name might be the Junior Cy awards. Or how about the "Good Clean
Cy" awards?

What a crock of crap.

Sidris


[View Quote]

Feb 24, 2003, 10:39pm

I was unaware that, as a paying customer of ActiveWorlds, that I am to be
excluded from community events because I didn't participate in any
particular discussion which took place in the past. Is this rule of
exclusion published somewhere? Is it only for me or does it include
everyone who may have missed discussions which took place yesterday, a week
ago, a month ago?

What have my "ignorant types" ruined, Bud? What does an opposing and well
stated opinion ever ruin but someone else's false sense of smug comfort and
belonging?

Here's the news but you probably aren't going to like it, Bud. I am in AW.
I am posting to this newsgroup. I am expressing my opinions about the Cy
awards and anything else I care to expound upon, like it or not. I will
continue to do so whenever I see fit because I pay for these privileges,
just the same as everyone else who has bought into this exclusive members
only club. Your "like it or leave it" attitude is immature and cowardly,
it's an attitude which has gone farther over the ages to try to hinder
progress more than anything else. Thankfully, it's an attitude which fails
more often than it succeeds. Ditto for your edict that I am "way too
ignorant" for my opinions to matter or count. I suppose you, Bud, are the
self-appointed barometer of intelligence here?

Now, please don't disappoint me. Come back with some more of your
illustrious second grader generalizations. In the meantime, if anyone would
be kind enough to steer me toward the mystery rules of this secret society
I'd certainly appreciate it. I'd hate to shake Bud out of his armchair by
offering ideas which may not comply with his own, whatever they may be.
However, if anyone one else may be interested in my ideas or in sharing
theirs with me regarding the Cys or any other aspect of AW, I'd be happy to
hear them via email or telegrams. Just be careful if you post them here or
Bud might get upset.

Sidris :)



[View Quote]

Feb 25, 2003, 12:31am

But what is there to be concerned about? Why all this alarm about
adult-content inacceptibility when the solution is as easy as "caveat
emptor'? Completely prohibiting the participation of a huge and
artistically worthy segment of the AW *community* negates the idea of
community entirely. Therefore it's my opinion that the Cy awards are not a
community event. They have become quite apparently a very NON-community
event and should be promoted as such. Period.

As far as bickering goes, whenever there's a committee of more than one
person, expression of difference is guaranteed. Ask anyone with a
boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife, child, friend, neighbor... well, I'm
sure you get my drift. Viva la difference because difference is usually the
most travelled road to improvement and progress. Barring the occasional
traffic fatality :) But in a sense I do agree with you, Goober, it seems to
me that the old adage "too many cooks spoil the brew" held sway,
particularly with the last Cys. My impression was that the committee was
overly concerned with social acceptibility to the point that they pandered
to fears instead of disspelling them. It was this same pandering which
caused the awards' true meaning to be lost on me and many others. The web
site vote reenactment only raised red flags in my mind. Plus I felt the
"nomination yard", although a good idea, was confusingly executed. But like
anything else, improvement can happen.

Improvement, however, will never happen as long as these events are ruled by
people who cling to attitudes of "like it or leave it" (see BinaryBud's
illuminating reply to my original post in this thread). The devolvement of
the Cy awards isn't going to correct itself as long as this self-limiting
attitude prevails. Most people need to feel they're welcome to take part,
that their efforts will be appreciated even if their ideas are determined as
unsuitable.


[View Quote]

Feb 26, 2003, 3:59am

Bud... what am I up to, exactly? Oh, and tell me how I'm spamming while
you're at it. Still shakin' my head over that one. Since you apologized
for being snippy I'll calm down. I probably won't forget that you called me
ignorant, though. :)

I don't dislike the Cys. Everyone deserves recognition for positive effort.
I just feel it's a mistake to exclude adult-content worlds because they're a
huge part of our *community*. More than this, art and innovation cross all
boundaries, no matter who creates them or where they're created. I mean...
I keep remembering something about RoboBuilder and an opium den :)

Okay, I'm kidding, truly.

As far as a better idea goes, okay, Bud, I suppose it's fair for you to
throw down the gauntlet (after calling me ignorant!). The best I can offer
is what I have offered in the past. That, just like the worlds now have
ratings, that the Cy committee post world ratings for every nominee (which I
think they do) and then offer a standard disclaimer that these worlds be
visited at the visitor's risk. This way no one risks offense and, in the
case of minors, responsibility is left where it should be - with the
parents.

As an adult, I'd much rather use my own discernment, make my own choices,
than have them made for me. This is what the exclusion of adult worlds from
the Cy is doing to everyone. Besides, it's also re-shaping the entire
tradition of the Cy awards just as much as trying to implement an entirely
new awards event would do.

Sid
(never negative!)

[View Quote]

Feb 9, 2001, 8:42am

This is the first time in two years, possibly longer, that I've ventured into
the AW newsgroups. I only did so tonight at the request of a friend who thought
I'd find this issue of voting of interest. She was right. Interesting.

Facter, I think you don't give yourself enough credit. You asked for a vote
and, from the looks of it, people voted. This made your endeavor a success.
Don't let your disappointment in the vote's outcome override the sense of
accomplishment to which you're entitled. Albeit hasty and, IMO, presumptuous,
you allowed those who post to this ng an opportunity to voice their opinions,
opinions which you certainly must have known would be diverse. It was
refreshing to me to return here to see that the general consensus of my fellow
AW'ers is one of tolerance. Even some people who may have been expected,
justifiably, to oust eep from the ng refrained from casting votes in favor of
his censorship. After all, that's what banning an individual from a public
forum is - censorship. I believe those who abstained from voting did so because
they knew to call for a fellow citizen's banishment would have set a terribly
dangerous precedent. eep's fate here would have been the first to be determined
by your so called "democratic" but very cloistered process but then, who would
have been next? And next?

You say this "situation" has created a mess. Would you care to explain what
damage has been done? You called for a vote, your call was honored even by
those who stated their refusal to participate. How could this possibly
"disgust" you? As a group, I think those who voiced an opinion did so
decorously. I, for one, am proud to know these are my fellow citizens and, were
they my customers, I'd rest easier knowing I do business with people who are
cautiously judicious.

You took a risk, Fac, one which actually paid off even if your knees got skinned
by the outcome. If your heart is truly behind this community as you've stated
many times over, you'll keep taking risks on behalf of our community, bigger
risks where success and failure will be greater than this call to settle a
paltry dispute over a person's choice of words. After all, I remember when you
used to raise hell in no uncertain terms and in language much stronger than what
you've quoted below. I also remember a time when you crusaded very ardently on
behalf of freedom of speech and expression. This is where I'd like to believe
your heart really is and, if you still stand for what you once believed in, you
won't let other people or circumstances dissuade your worthiest efforts.

Sidris


[View Quote] > Eep could be suspended from this group, for a very simple reason - he broke
> the newsgroup charter, he abuses his priviledge and he is an insulting,
> faececious individual. I nor the company needed to even consult any of you -
> but, I had respect for all of you.
>
> Something had to be shown to Eep, so that he would realise the impact that
> his insulting nature has had on this community - did you all want me to
> stand back and go "yes eep, no eep, three bags full eep" ? Looking at it
> now, just banning him would of been the best solution out of anything.
>
> But it seems that the hope, that we could place a simple decision in the
> hands of our users, has turned into something that I myself am disgusted in.
> You all see now, why AWCI has really had user votes - and why when things
> have been done, they are done in an administration manner - look at the mess
> this whole situation has created - and you guys out there, all wonder why
> the management at AWCI keeps a distance from these newsgroups.
>
> Well, now you all know dont you ?
>
> Now perhaps you realise exactly how divided, how bickering and how very
> small our community really is. Its up to you people to fix it. I believed
> that by giving you guys something that you *Always* asked for - democratic
> processes, that this would help. By being completely open about the matter,
> I allowed something totally different to be done - I approached the
> situation with honesty and with the genuine intent to try and help a
> situation which in my opinion was jsut going way too far.
>
> I gave my opinions, I tried to engage the community in a rational decision.
> I wished merely to assist you all, without being the brunt of abuse,
> derogatory remarks and slander from a certain individual.
>
> Please let me show you, first, before I go any further, the kind of person
> that some of you are defending so much.
>
> These are quoted insults he has used, mostly against me in the past day or
> two - "power hungry", "shoving it off to the community", "ties too hard",
> "power tripping", "low self esteem","You're such a fucking twit, "YOU, idiot
> twitfuck moron pissant, have no grip on logic","Now evolve ","hypocrit,
> (spelling Eep, again),"pathetic","Sure, one word: bullshit. "fucking with
> the newsgroups","bullshit statements","bullshit artist","fucking
> clone.","Because you have no life?","...a trip to a shrink might help.",".
> Better lay off them drugs","superchamp wonder twinkie-zippy.
> ","Facter is weak since he can't handle the truth.","fucking full of
> yourself","Only after continually insulting him" (he admits to continually
> insulting people for his own pleasure),".
>
> Some of you are DEFENDING this kind of person ? *shakes his head* - then
> this community, had already gone to hell in a handbasket well before I tried
> to help matters. How anyone can defend someone for that kind of behaviour is
> beyond me. as an intelligent, caring and decent person I can find *no* way
> in myself to see how any could possibly defend such.
>
> Rick, JP and indeed the whole office is aware of this situation. Rick and JP
> were spoken to before I even instigated the vote, or contemplated any
> "Bannings". It was a general agreement, to try and involve the community in
> some decision making, and to try and instill some kind of trust in allowing
> a democratic process to be allowed on matters of discipline in this
> newsgroup. I had the full support of my superiors, and indeed thought that
> by trying to give the community something like this, a decision like this,
> that it may go some way towards helping the rift that seems to be between
> portions of the community and management.
>
> It was tried, and it the process has failed.
>
> From now, there will be no more technical support from myself in these
> newsgroups. All support will now be done via email and no correspondance
> between myself will be entered into in these newsgroups. Eep is welcome to
> remain, but there will be moderation on posts if they are found to be of a
> derogatory, insulting or offensive nature. If he _pushes_ the matter, and
> merely continues to heap into this group posts of an insulting nature to
> others including myself, then he will be banned, with no consultation or
> appeal entered into.
>
> On a personal note, I must say that my first foray into trying to help the
> AW community in my capacity as a employee of AWCI, it has left a very bad
> taste in my mouth. Instead of seeing potential, instead of seeing that I
> could indeed help, instead of being polite, and courteous and respectful
> towards me, Eep has attacked for no , insulted, provoked, defamed and made
> mockery in his words of my professional manner.
>
> On the matter of the newsgroup downtime, the downage was fully explained
> explained on the outset (I even posted about it on the network status page,
> and they were down for four hours, and the only persont hat noticed was you,
> Eep) - do NOT twist that into something it is not Eep - my explaination was
> a fully good one, and merely lacked down to the bare level details such as
> "defraging harddrive, scandisk and a check of files - i mean, geez - "I took
> down the server for maintenance" covers ALL of those things, which are some
> of the things that were done on that morning.
>
> I will no longer be posting to these newsgroups. There will be no more
> "votes" in these newsgroups, and as I stated before, there will be
> moderation of offensive posts, and Eep will especially be looked at.
> Obviously, there is a large portion of people here who, for some reason,
> wish he remains (they may not even be a majority) but for whatever reason,
> he may do so - on conditions, and if those conditions are not met, thent he
> matter will be dealt with in accordance to charter guidelines. All users of
> this newsgroup, are to be aware of the charter, and Eep is not singled out
> here, these standards apply to all who we give the priviledge of using these
> groups.
>
> But, myself, as AW Technical Support - have wiped my hands of this group,
> and will not be utilising them again for information or advice - support may
> be found at support at activeworlds.com
>
> For those of you that know me, you know that what occured here occured in
> good faith, or good heart, and good intent. Unfortunatly, it has soured me
> of doing anything of this nature again - I have tried for years, since
> coming to AW in 1996, to try and help the community. I have been a GK, a PK,
> an outspoken advocate against harsh tactics in many different forms. I
> continue to now be outspoken against harsh PK tactics, abuses of individuals
> in the worlds (do you know how many people I help when they have been
> harrassed?) and doing all manner of things to assist this community - most
> of which is done in my *own* time, of my own violition, of my own *want* to
> give back everything that I have got from this place. When I applied to work
> here at AW, I am sure that one of the reasons I was chosen for the job was
> due to the fact that I *was* outspoken on these issues, and would help to
> bring some new ideas on how to relate tot he community. Having been a GK,
> and a PK, and not being able to help in the manner I really wanted, seeing
> the job was a godsend. In the year previously, I had logged into AW about
> ten times total - I kept coming back, instead of giving up on it - the job
> was a godsend and an opportunity to give back to the community.
>
> I do not need to be judged, I do not need to be insulted, when I have merely
> wished to help, assist and give new ideas and initiative to the community.
> And especially, I do not need to be ground into the dirt by one individual
> who has a severe lack of social adequacy.
>
> I do not think that you need to wonder why now I have no wish to be a part
> of these groups.
>
> As stated - Eep is welcome to remain. Any derogatory posts from him or any
> others will be deleted, continuous insults and derogatory remarks from any
> user, including Eep, will result in the user's priviledges in these
> newsgroup being revoked.
>
> Enjoy your newsgroups.
>
> Fletcher Andersen
> AW Tech Support.

Feb 1, 2003, 6:58pm

Hot damn, Fac, you've gone and breathed some life into this mindless morass!
Now I know why I've stuck around in lurk mode all these years. Beauty!

But is it prat? Or twat? :)

I feel so warm and tingly!

Sid

[View Quote]

Feb 10, 2003, 3:40am

Well stated, Linn.

I think AWI shot themselves square in the foot this time. If tourists must
be restricted, should it be at the expense of those who already bear the
greatest expense of all - worldowners?

What was AWI thinking? Did they think the revenue generated from their
decision would outweigh what is well on its way to becoming a wide rift
among a very important segment of AW community? Once 3.4 is released and a
special designator is given to tourist enabled worlds, worlds without the
designator will still stand out. Negatively. They'll stand out as
unfriendly and unsupportive of AW's future. They'll stand out as cheap and
second rate, as worlds owned by "poor folks" who can't afford yet another
AW-related expense. Non-designated worlds will stand out for these reasons
whether they're true or not.

Before implementing the tourist restriction did anyone from AWI try standing
in a tourist's shoes for a couple of minutes? Did they consider how
tourists felt suddenly being catapaulted back to AWGate because they were no
longer allowed in most of their old familiar worlds and places? Did AWI
really think that feelings of shock, isolation and resentment would serve as
incentives for tourists to register when such feelings never, ever serve
anything positive at all?

There's something more that flies in the face of everyone , world owner and
regular citizen alike, who DOES pay. Tourists who keep the software and
access AW to the point they're acknowledged as regular users SHOULD pay just
like everyone else who has paid and keeps paying for citizenships, for
worlds, for hosting, for high-end computers and software which makes it
possible to enhance their worlds so they can be seen and enjoyed by ALL, not
just a limited portion of an already limited audience.

Sure, locking tourists out of most of AW's finest content has already
compelled some world owners to ante up but what happens when the fee comes
due again next year? Will they pay again if the fee comes due at an
inopportune time? Will owners of smaller, lesser known worlds pay again if
their worlds haven't seen a significant increase in tourist visitation? If
they don't pay again, will AWI find someone else's shoulders to place this
burden upon?

Just a few things to think about. And here's at least one more...

Tourists SHOULD pay. After a generous time limit, after given ample time to
learn to build, after enough time to establish themselves in AW's community,
tourists should pay, no more but no less than any other citizen or world
owner pays. After a gratis, generous time limit to learn the ins and outs
and make friends in AW, tourists should pay. It's a burden which should
never be foisted upon those who already pay enough.

Like the time limit on most shareware, just like the time limit on
citizenships and world ownership, tourists should be placed on a time limit
and as that limit draws to an end AWI should make every effort to cultivate
these potential customers into paying ones. Their efforts won't pay off in
full but they won't be entirely lost. Like advertising, something else AWI
should do, it's simply called the cost of doing business. Some tourists
will let their time limits expire and never return. Others may not pay up
immediately but they'll return, payment in hand, sometime in the future.
But some of them will pay and they'll pay without having to be convinced.
Chances are they'll bring family and friends with them.

Just like there's no free lunch, there is no free ride. Those who take it
should pay for their own ticket, no one else.




[View Quote]

1  |   Order by default