1  2  |   Order by default

Nov 29, 1998, 8:30pm

Although your reply is somewhat longer than mine ;-), i agree with you.
Even if COF wouldn't really really need the money, I'd hope they kee the
high setup fee.
The number of 'impulsed' worlds is too high already now...

[View Quote]

Nov 30, 1998, 2:08pm

[View Quote] Nope. I know I don't have enough motivation to start a world and keep
running it. So I won't do it.

>but state in an abusive manner that
>many are around, who made you god?.

??? Did I say I was god? Sorry but then you have a big fantasy!

>
>I agree about the worthless worlds but most only visit them quickly , after
>saying that some that seem useless to you are just what others are looking
>for... horses for courses.

Yep. But you must agree that free worlds will result in more world; of which
a very high percentage won't really add something; they'll just polute the
worlds-list.

>
>Klassi
[View Quote]

Nov 30, 1998, 2:13pm

[View Quote] ???
What's your point?

>Also
>answer why ALL the so called impulse buyers haven't sold their worlds at a
>reduced price.

Am I supposed to answer some sort of question now? Well, I'm affraid you
haven't really made yourself clear enough to even make me understand the
question...

>
>Klassi
[View Quote]

Nov 30, 1998, 5:15pm

[View Quote] That's what I mean:
I didn't say I am god, and I don't why you think that I think so.
Well...??
I just said:
Only some of the worlds are worth visiting. If starting a world will be
cheaper; the number of worlds that ain't world visiting will rise faster
than the number of worlds that IS worth visiting...
And I don't like that.

>
>--
>
>[ Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik ]
>[ ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft ]
>[ fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com ]
>
>The nice thing of standards is that there are so many to choose from.
>-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
>
>
[View Quote]

Nov 30, 1998, 7:47pm

[View Quote] Gimme a break, man!
What the heck are you brabbling about? I said nothing abusive.
And if u do think so, you have, as I said, a BIG fantasy.
But don't get back on me for it..

>You said, " Sorry but I have a big fantasy".. If you believe what I said
was
>anything but symbolic you misunderstood.

I hope so... I don't believe in (a) god(s) so I hope I am not a god myself,
cause that would mean..... ;-)


>Obviously free worlds would result in more worlds, and more worlds would
mean
>more to sort through and many wouldn't be that good BUT lots would be. I
have
>always been against free worlds

I am too, so why are we flaming if we agree.

>but for a discount on a second and or third world.

I had already understood that that was your point.
And indeed it's not a bad idea.

Nov 30, 1998, 7:56pm

As I now *do* understand what you want, here is a reply.

[View Quote] Of course I don't know any numbers. DUH!!
But neither do you.

>Also answer why ALL the so called impulse buyers haven't sold
>their worlds at a
>reduced price.

Because if you buy something and sell it for reduced price, you lose money.
DUHH!!
That's one of the first rules of logic I guess..

>Klassi
[View Quote]

Dec 1, 1998, 1:14pm

[View Quote] Neither did I, smarty.

>
money.
>
>But buying something and then not using it is a bigger waste of money than
>buying something and recouping some of the outlay by reselling it..
Agreed?

Yep. But what the heck does that have to do with this issue?
Someone buys a world. Once a month he adds something. But generally he
doesn't have very much time. Why would he sell his world? *He* enjoys it..

Dec 1, 1998, 1:21pm

[View Quote] Abuse to whom? :-)
I asked nobody to feel spoken to. I just claim there are fucking idiots out
there, which is very likely to be true. And some of these fucking idiots,
that are (as I said) very likely to exist, would buy a world if that was
cheaper.


>
myself,
>
>Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.. In english just plain nuts.
>
>
>I don't recognize flaming, if I don't agree with some of what you say, I
simply
>reply saying so.. Nothing personal you could be anyone and I would answer
the
>same.I guess I just feel more strongly about something's, that is what
makes
>individuals interesting, our diversity.
>
>
>Add it to my wish list!
>
>Klassi
>
>
>
>
>

Dec 2, 1998, 5:12am

[View Quote] Indeed. :-)

>Another thing: Yes, the owner would be losing money if he sold it for
less
>than he paid for it, but if he doesn't want it anymore and wants to sell
it, how
>many people would pay more for it than for a nice fresh clean world that
they
>won't have to pay an extra fee to change the name on? You can only sell
a
>product for as much as a person is willing to purchase it. You won't have
many
>takers if you try to sell a used car for more than you paid for it new
(unless
>it is a classic in good to mint condition, but that is the exception).

Indeed. :-)
But I still don't get *why* this aspect entered this thread.
What the heck does that have to do with it? :-)

>
[View Quote]

Dec 2, 1998, 5:14am

[View Quote] Indeed.

>Want to meet in AW?.....
Ok.;-) But that's a bit hard now. Unless you mean Active Worlds.
>
>Klassi
>
>
>

Dec 2, 1998, 8:45pm

I never said it was crap.
YOU read...
I only said I find some worlds not worth visiting.
Since when is it not allowed to think so???

[View Quote]

Dec 3, 1998, 5:32am

Ok.
BTW:
1) Awprime is backonline and reachable for most of us I think.
2) Why not just go to AWgate?
That's a lot easier way to appoint, I think :-)
Are you in active worlds at regular times?
If so, i'll just check to be there the same time as you some time. :-)

[View Quote]

Dec 4, 1998, 1:13pm

[View Quote] Yep.

>so you consider them crap.

Nope.
I just don't think I wanna go there...

Nov 22, 1998, 9:59pm

I ain't pickin' on nobody. All I say is you shouldn't bring up silly
arguments like citizen numbers and how long you've been in AW.

You talk like the one who has most experience is always right.
Don't you think that's nonsense? If we go judging like that we'd better stop
all discussion and trade citizen numbers instead.

Klassi's argument sounded a lot better to me, which was that till now they
haven't done a thing of what they said they'd do. That's a better reason not
to believe that custom avatars will be possible.
You didn't bring any argument *why* you didn't believe it would happen. So
for me it was better to believe the programmer, than believe a citizen who
says he's right because his citz# is higher....

And like citz# don't matter, age doesn't matter at all to determine who's
right.
Just don't bring up silly arguments if you want people to believe you.
No argument is better than a silly argument, because a silly argument lowers
your reputation

Cubic || Kiss the
ICQ -- 18557607 || devil and
cubic at mediaport.org || piss off
http://welcome.to/cubic || the saint.
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh <jrrodgers at usa.net>
Newsgroups: wishlist
To: Cubic <hans_bomers at club.tip.nl>
Date: maandag 23 november 1998 0:00
Subject: Re: Custom avs are here! - yippee!


I don't know it all so maybe you should shutup, and maybe you SHOULD
sotp
picking on a 14 year old and go get a life and play with your people
your own
age sparky...

[View Quote] > Is THAT the best argument you can come up with? :-(
> Like that proves anything at all...
> You sound like a little child!
>
> Besides; i agree with Klassi;
> If Roland says custom avatars going to happen, what reason heave you
*not*
> to believe that? Well??
> Maybe Roland doesn't have the final decission.
> But if he says yes and you say no; I'd believe HIM.
> Like *you* know it all.
>
[View Quote]

Nov 23, 1998, 8:05pm

That argument was indeed a bit limited (of *Josh* ;-) )
Anyway, I don't seem to be getting *your* point really...


[View Quote]

Nov 24, 1998, 2:15pm

That is the whole meaning of the thread:
You *weren't* making a point at all! You only side what you heard was not
true..
And if I say you're unreasonable cuz you give bad arguments or none at all,
you see *I* am nagging!

I haven't been flaming btw.
You started telling *me* to shut up!
In contrast: all *I* said is why do you say that what Klassi said was *not*
true, if you don't have good reasons to believe that.
And if you *do* have good reasons: why didn't you tell them to us?
Else, how could we ever believe *you* ?
Denying is so easy....

So don't say *I* am flaming and don't say *I* am being unreasonable.
If somebody says something I believe him untill i have *reasons* not to. You
didn't bring any of these reasons so there was no reason to agree with you.


[View Quote]

Nov 26, 1998, 1:15pm

I think the 'owner' of the world should be able to determine whether custom
avatars are allowed in that specific world. If he decides not to allow it;
you'd be able to choose between the world's own avatars.
Ain't that better?

[View Quote]

Nov 26, 1998, 1:24pm

[View Quote] Nothing. I think FLuxen and you agree that there should be an option to turn
custom avatars on or off. I agree to.
But your conflict is: should this option be for the viewer or for the
world-owner?
I think the world-owner should be able to turn it on and off. If you make a
world that looks like space (like Rolu is planning) and you want avatars
like astronauts and aliens. Wouldn't it be horrible if somebody showed up in
a bikini ?!?!
If you start a world I think it's because you wanna make something that
looks cool. So you want the avatars to fit in. SO I think the world owner
should determine what avatars are available in his world.
So if you want your own avatars, I think you should start your own world :-)


>
>Because different worlds have different "ratings", it may be possible to
>to tag an avatar with a rating as well. As long as the avatar's rating is
>lower or equal to the world's rating, it is allowed to be used there (if
>custom avatars are allowed in that world). The problem is that the rating
>of the avatars must be voluntary.
>
>Perhaps there needs to be a way to visually "mute" an offending avatar --
>turn it into a "tourist" avatar.
>
>ScottyDM
>
>--
>Please send all SPAMS, FLAMES, and CONSPIRACY THEORIES to
>scottydm at cwia.com
>Send all other IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE to scottydm at codenet.net
> ___
> /////\\ Digitally Enhanced Portrait of:
> {|-0-0-|} Scott D. Miller,
> | % | Silicon Mercenary
> \===/ Freelance Chip Designer
>
>always #5 FOO = ~FOO; // the sound of a beating heart

Nov 27, 1998, 5:40am

[View Quote] Because too much freedom is *usually* bad for the atmosphere.
Some people then forget to think about others too. Like the 'vulgaire'
avatars: Nics if you like it, but do others like it? Like Fluxen said in
some msgs:
"You're free to go anywhere. But then you have to adapt to the situation and
not the other way around."
I think you shouldn't just be able to do just anything you like...


> I think that the cons of RL should not be implemented in VL.
>
>
>No. There's nothing wrong with it. It would be best. However, it's not the
>way the custom avatars will be implemented...
>
>
>Eh... ratings for *custom* avatars?? Doesn't look very useful. If one uses
>an avatar s/he knows to be possibly offending... would s/he then accept to
>be rated? Not many, at least...
>
>
>Sounds good. The viewer able to mute specific avs according to their own
>ideas.

Nov 29, 1998, 8:30am

I WISH you had ever heard of spam.
Well... This is quite near to that.
So please go do this in the TEST-newsgroup you idiot.
That's what it's meant for; useless posts and tests.

[View Quote]

Nov 29, 1998, 8:32pm

Idiot!
Never heard of 'wishlist'? Dump yer shit there!!
Or better: alt.ascii-art ...

This is a wishlist not a clipboard!

[View Quote]

Dec 5, 1998, 9:26pm

I wish COF would implement day and night. Or at least a possibility for
world-owners to switch it on.
And I don't necessarily want it to be a *24*-hour cyclus. Maybe that should
be left a choice for the world-owner.
Like (after Rolu's idea) 32 hours; that's much cooler.
Cuz then, if you'd visit AW every night at the same time (RL), then you'd
see a different stage everyday. (Night, noon, dawn, etc.)

We don't have to copy RL to AW. So why take 24hour-cyclus if something else
is cooler or more logical.
I mean let's face it.. What the heck is 24 supposed to be? 104 devided by 4
and then reduced by the square-root of the difference between 39 and 37...
;-)
Why not take 25 or 32 or hundred.

Dec 6, 1998, 4:41pm

[View Quote] No kidding ;-)

But the textures don't change.
You only get that idea.


[View Quote]

Dec 15, 1998, 10:35pm

Are you new!?!?!
Of course the idea is great and it's great to be able to use it.
BUt they never pay any attention to wishes, they work slow, inefficient,
weird.
And so does the Aw-browser!

I like the general idea, but COF could make a lot of improvements. And they
don't!! That's the problem.
What the heck do you expect with only one programmer?

[View Quote]

Dec 15, 1998, 10:41pm

>1. Better 3d hardware support (I really need to get the visibility and
>framerate up)

Yep...
Maybe it would be expensive but it would work.
I mean: if you can play quake with 20 people at 50 fps why does AW run on
2fps with a Viper V330 !?!?!

>2. A better building interface (perhaps a seperate program or module that
>has each object type as a series of menus and sub-menues to select objects)

And maybe off-line building followed by easy uploading to a spot specified
by you as soon as you get onlin.

>3. Individual avatars that can be carried throughout the universe (is so
>I can be ME)

And maybe a board to accept/reject these homemade avatars!

>4. Voice over IP (admittedly hard especially in a group situation, but
>maybe 1-to-1?)

Rather 1 to 1 I think. I mean: if I remember correctly you want to speed
thing *up* ;-)

>5. File transfer to people in AW

Shouldn't be too hard as far as I know anything at all about it ;-)

>6. Real Vudio and Real Video inside AW

Forget it!
Not everyone has his private T1-connection...
Too bad actually; cuz the idea of real audio and video is in fact quite
cool...

Dec 15, 1998, 10:43pm

Sorry but I think his idea's ain't that weird.
I suggest we all start promoting these things.
Even if it won't work, it will at least result in *some* positive changes by
COF ;-)

[View Quote]

1  2  |   Order by default