johnny // User Search

johnny // User Search

1  |  

Posting in the newsgroup

Dec 19, 1999, 7:17pm
That's not a bad idea. - John


[View Quote]

New Citizen Login

Dec 15, 1999, 12:30pm
If I'm correctly understanding what I read in the charter, the reason for
the moderated group is to eliminate the personal 'slug-fests' that some
users decided to carry out in the newsgroups - not to avoid criticism of AW.
If that's true, then I'm for it. I stopped reading the newsgroups for a
long time because of the nasty battles that users chose to publicize.
There's no reason for people to abandon common courtesy. There's a big
difference between 'bitching' and complaining. It seems to me that AW.com
is encouraging the latter while discouraging the former. Kudos to them.

It also seemed from the charter that this group (community) IS open to all
users - not just citizens. I haven't tried to verify that, but I have no
reason to doubt it at this point.

John


[View Quote]

New Citizen Login

Dec 19, 1999, 7:16pm
Yes, you're right about the login. I didn't realize that until I tried to
post that message. I agree. I think the community board should be open to
tourists as well. However, I do stick by my original idea - that the
intention was basically a good one. Cutting down on the flaming and having
intelligent discussion is a good thing. I also noticed your note on
starting a group to intelligently discuss some of the issues facing the AW
community. I think it's a very good idea.

John



[View Quote]

:-(.. I'm in Berlin and it is 1989...

Dec 19, 1999, 7:17pm
Jude, sorry for not saying this in my original post. It was basically an
afterthought. It took a little time to organize my thoughts on this.

I think this discussion group is a really good idea. However, I also think
that, in order to truly effect change, it will need to have the blessing of
COF. We could discuss things and put together proposals, but unless COF
thinks it's a good idea and is willing to lend an ear and a certain degree
of authority, it would be tough to truly get things done. Now, please don't
interpret that as shooting the idea down. That's not what I'm saying at
all. I think that this is a really good idea. We just need to get COF
involved at the very beginning in order to make this an effective group.

What strikes me is that the AW community is very much like a real
community - especially given the fact that unlike most 'chat' programs, AW
has a real 'environment', with people, property, zoning etc. Given that, it
seems to me that what is in order is a form of 'government' - like a mayor's
office with an advisory council etc. Those are glorified terms for
committees, but you get the idea.

Obviously, because AW is owned by COF, they would need to have the final say
in anything. However, it seems to me that they may welcome the idea of
offloading some of the community management and dispute mediation to members
of the community itself. They may also like the idea of intelligently
organized and managed discussions that result in real suggestions in a
concise form (rather than having to wade through all of the postings on the
various boards to come up with ideas.) They could also bounce some of their
ideas off of the group to get a prelimary idea for how they will be received
by the community at large. If you view this as a kind of goverment, then
the creation of some by-laws would be a good idea. COF could review them
for approval and be able to request changes to them at any time.

I know that I've thrown out a bunch of ideas here, but let me see if I can
organize them a little more concisely:

What I'm envisioning is a form of governing committee with an elected
chairperson. The idea is that the committee could discuss changes,
suggestions etc. for the ActiveWorlds community (or perhaps just a single
'public' world). It could also discuss and make decisions/recommendations
about disputes. Those decisions/recommendations could be put in a concise
form and reviewed with someone from COF (preferably someone that COF would
make available - as a liason - so that there is basically one point of
contact.) Of course, it would be just as nice to have someone from COF on
the committee itself, but that is a matter of whether or not COF wants to do
that. I would also suggest involving the current Peace Keepers - making
them an extension of the committee, specializing in gathering information
and investigating disputes and then bringing their findings before the
committee for review/discussion. Of course, we could also find a plot of
land (probably in AW), build a meeting hall and meet there for regular
meetings. (After all, why not have your discussions right in AW as a
group.) Although, a separate discussion board would probably be a good idea
too.

My wish list would include 1) having COF review their ideas for changes to
AW, the browser, new features etc. with the group and getting feedback
before making decisions 2) perhaps giving the Peace Keepers some
enforcement authority (according to mutually agreed-upon rules) in order to
delete abandoned property etc. 3) (this one is really just a personal one
for me, but I'd love to meet some of people who have made this really cool
Cyberverse. I would love to take a tour of the studios and see what they do
and how they come up with some of this stuff.)

Let me know your thoughts on this. I invite your comments. Please feel
free to shoot holes in this or make suggestions/recommendations. (Be kind
though - I do have feelings.) I'd also love to hear what COF may have to
say about this idea.

Thanks,
John





[View Quote]

:-(.. I'm in Berlin and it is 1989...

Dec 19, 1999, 7:17pm
Jude, sorry for not saying this in my original post. It was basically an
afterthought. It took a little time to organize my thoughts on this.

I think this discussion group is a really good idea. However, I also think
that, in order to truly effect change, it will need to have the blessing of
COF. We could discuss things and put together proposals, but unless COF
thinks it's a good idea and is willing to lend an ear and a certain degree
of authority, it would be tough to truly get things done. Now, please don't
interpret that as shooting the idea down. That's not what I'm saying at
all. I think that this is a really good idea. We just need to get COF
involved at the very beginning in order to make this an effective group.

What strikes me is that the AW community is very much like a real
community - especially given the fact that unlike most 'chat' programs, AW
has a real 'environment', with people, property, zoning etc. Given that, it
seems to me that what is in order is a form of 'government' - like a mayor's
office with an advisory council etc. Those are glorified terms for
committees, but you get the idea.

Obviously, because AW is owned by COF, they would need to have the final say
in anything. However, it seems to me that they may welcome the idea of
offloading some of the community management and dispute mediation to members
of the community itself. They may also like the idea of intelligently
organized and managed discussions that result in real suggestions in a
concise form (rather than having to wade through all of the postings on the
various boards to come up with ideas.) They could also bounce some of their
ideas off of the group to get a prelimary idea for how they will be received
by the community at large. If you view this as a kind of goverment, then
the creation of some by-laws would be a good idea. COF could review them
for approval and be able to request changes to them at any time.

I know that I've thrown out a bunch of ideas here, but let me see if I can
organize them a little more concisely:

What I'm envisioning is a form of governing committee with an elected
chairperson. The idea is that the committee could discuss changes,
suggestions etc. for the ActiveWorlds community (or perhaps just a single
'public' world). It could also discuss and make decisions/recommendations
about disputes. Those decisions/recommendations could be put in a concise
form and reviewed with someone from COF (preferably someone that COF would
make available - as a liason - so that there is basically one point of
contact.) Of course, it would be just as nice to have someone from COF on
the committee itself, but that is a matter of whether or not COF wants to do
that. I would also suggest involving the current Peace Keepers - making
them an extension of the committee, specializing in gathering information
and investigating disputes and then bringing their findings before the
committee for review/discussion. Of course, we could also find a plot of
land (probably in AW), build a meeting hall and meet there for regular
meetings. (After all, why not have your discussions right in AW as a
group.) Although, a separate discussion board would probably be a good idea
too.

My wish list would include 1) having COF review their ideas for changes to
AW, the browser, new features etc. with the group and getting feedback
before making decisions 2) perhaps giving the Peace Keepers some
enforcement authority (according to mutually agreed-upon rules) in order to
delete abandoned property etc. 3) (this one is really just a personal one
for me, but I'd love to meet some of people who have made this really cool
Cyberverse. I would love to take a tour of the studios and see what they do
and how they come up with some of this stuff.)

Let me know your thoughts on this. I invite your comments. Please feel
free to shoot holes in this or make suggestions/recommendations. (Be kind
though - I do have feelings.) I'd also love to hear what COF may have to
say about this idea.

Thanks,
John





[View Quote]

Newsgroup and Bashing

Dec 19, 1999, 7:17pm
Well said, Mac, but I have to disagree with you on some points. I don't
think that it's an issue of being 'traumatized' by reading flames in the
newsgroup. However, it certainly is counterproductive and a waste of space.
I know that do not like wading through tons of messages where people are
carrying out personal arguments just to find one piece of intelligent
discourse. Something that, amazingly enough, actually has something to do
with AW.

On the other hand, I must also say that I agree with you on the diversity
issue. I love the diversity on AW. It makes AW, like any other community,
a stronger/better community. However, I don't see that creating a moderated
group or even closing it to non-citizens discourages diversity. I don't see
censorship going on here. I don't see AW filtering out posts that criticize
them - or I wouldn't be replying to yours right now. I'd like to see
non-citizens on this board, but I think that AW is very receptive to changes
that come from the community. They may yet reconsider their decision on
that for this board. Have a little patience.

As for the mechanism for censorship being in place, that's true. Although,
it is important to remember that AW, unlike the real world, is an *owned*
place. It is open to the public and can face these issues only because
aw.com/COF chooses to let it be so. They can change it at any time and it
is well within their rights to do so. However, as long as they choose to
let it be a public place, they have no need or reason to censor; only to try
to maintain a certain degree of decorum.

John


[View Quote]

Newsgroup and Bashing

Dec 31, 1999, 8:33pm
[View Quote] > You never had to 'wade' through anything if you didn't want to. If there
> was someone that posted in the Newsgroup that you didn't like or didn't
> want to read their opinion you didn't have to read it. There was even a
> discussion with instructions on how to filter certain people from your
> newsreader. That way you never had to read their posts. So, IMHO, that's
> a VERY mute point. On more than one occasion when a thread went off I
> would just click on " mark thread read" and go on. No biggy, not hard to
> do and a lot like the 'mute' function within AW. We do have choices in
> life of what we read and tolerate but we as individuals have the
> responsibility to take it upon ourselves to make those choices and not
> expect someone else to make those choices for us.

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you here. When I said 'wading through',
I meant that I would read posts only to find out a few sentences into the
post that they were flaming someone else for not agreeing - amounting to
nothing but public 'bitching'. Yes, I know how to ignore certain people and
entire conversation threads. The point is: I shouldn't have to. If this is
a true forum, then not everyone is going to have bad things to say all of
the time. I don't want to ignore anyone. If it's about Active Worlds, then
the topic should stay centered around that. I shouldn't have to ignore an
entire thread because it is off topic. The only thing that COF has done
here is add a moderator to sift out that stuff. I don't see that it's a bad
thing to have a person who keeps the discussion from degrading into a Jerry
Springer slugfest. All well-run discussions have such a facilitator. Why
should this be any different?


> Many people feel they have had more than enough patience. Obviously, some
> more than others. Other people feel they are at their ends with all of
> it and have decided to leave. Unfortunately many seem to be very long
> term helpful people in the community. To be fair though, many are just
> people tired of it, taking a break or going on with others things.

Fine, let them. I don't mean to be terse, but the fact is, it's not their
decision to make. That decision belongs to COF and no matter what decisions
they make on any topic, they're not going to suit everyone. I'm sorry that
some people feel that they need to leave, but it's a 3D chat room for crying
out loud! It's not like we're talking about government programs or
healthcare. Let them get angry and throw a fit about something more
important.


Although,
*owned*
it
to
try

> At least in part owned by the citizens that pay their fees, world owners
> that pay fees and yearly registrations, and of course now by the stock
> owners. ( I realize how much $$$ COF invested too)

Sorry, I disagree again. Active Worlds is not 'owned' in whole or in part
by its citizens. If anything, it is 'rented'. Let's keep that in
perspective. Subscription to Active Worlds is a service. That's what is
being paid for. World Owners are a different story. They reserve the right
to make decisions about their own worlds - or to discontinue them. That's
what they pay for. As for stock owners, I don't see too many of them
complaining here. Even if they have a gripe, this is not the forum for
that.

Conversely, it should be mentioned that Active Worlds is nothing without its
citizens. If COF chooses to ignore the wishes of the citizens, it is
'shooting itself in the foot' so to speak. That gives citizens the power of
popular demand - but no legal ownership. Thinking in those terms only gives
one a false sense of power/importance.

John

1  |  
Awportals.com is a privately held community resource website dedicated to Active Worlds.
Copyright (c) Mark Randall 2006 - 2021. All Rights Reserved.
Awportals.com   ·   ProLibraries Live   ·   Twitter   ·   LinkedIn