1  ...  64  65  66  67  68  69  ...  101  |   Order by default

Dec 28, 2001, 2:32pm

The first amendment prohibits that. Freedom of religion, not everyone
believes "god" is their god LoL, then there's the people who don't believe
in a god. It's just a figure of speech really.. not really meant to be
taken offense too. If it's offensive to you.. mute them, that solves that
problem, because 99% chance it's not offensive to anyone else, we can't
cater to a small precentile of people who are religious fanatics. But when
someone makes a racist statement, that applies to everyone of that race..
and it offends others that aren't from that race as well.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2001, 4:05pm

Shorthand for something that's spelt correctly. Cuz, u r, i, etc al. are
not spelt correctly or are even grammatically correct. Lots of Laughs is
shorthand to show laughter.. is cuz and the rest shorthand for stupidity and
laziness?

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2001, 6:24pm

If you're saying short, unfinished sentences like most people do in chats
you don't need a period, that's besides the point though. Damn isn't a
"cuss" word. I could name a couple that really are. :)

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Dec 29, 2001, 2:33am

LoL sorry they are extremely offensive. Far beyond damn. :)

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Dec 29, 2001, 2:55am

I don't support it, but you're limiting amendment rights, which is by law,
extremly illegal. You're not the Supreme Court so if you choose to limit
these freedoms, AW and yourself could face severe criminal punishment, if
one were to take it that far.

The "n word" is illegal by Amendment 15 of the U.S. constitution.. abridging
a right an accountance of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
This is a loose interpretation of that Amendment.. I don't believe in
following it strictly.

Now as for "god damn." This is strictly a religious matter as you
suggested. You cannot punish someone for saying that as they may not have
the same beliefs you have. Not all religions believe "god" is the god.. or
there is a god. Then there's the Atheist side. By punishing someone
because you find it offensive being a christian is imposing your beliefs
onto that person, which is prohibited by the First Amendment of the
Constitution. The fact that you find offense to "god damn" does not mean
anyone else in that area does.. thus you should mute the offending person.

Nazi propaganda would be imposing the above "you're not my religion so I'm
banning you" banning and allowing of the "n word" which I do not agree with.
"God damn" is a figure of speech and should be treated as such. Not
everyone in this world is Christian.

An to the "F word" now. That is offensive to everyone and should not be
prohibited in a G rated world. Damn is G rated material, last I checked it
always has been since according to the Christian faith, in example, the
preacher has the ability to say damn.. while children are present. As
unfortunate as this is.. the Christian society rules the way our society is
"monitored" and since it is so in the Christian faith.. it is true in our
society.

--Bowen--
P.S. I in no way support bigotry. In case you think I do since I would
allow "god damn" to be spoken.

Dec 29, 2001, 3:16am

> An to the "F word" now. That is offensive to everyone and should not be
> prohibited in a G rated world.

"should be prohibited" my bad..

--Bowen--

Dec 29, 2001, 9:39pm

> Ejecting someone for saying GD is not inhibiting their right to believe
what they want to. Furthermore, if you own a private world, you can eject
anyone you want to for whatever reason you wish. And last but not least, not
everyone is from the United States.
>

AW is a company owned and operated in the US. Thus all laws apply to it and
everyone whom uses it. And yes, if you're ejecting based on "god damn"
because it's offensive to you, that is being biased to your religion, not
respecting that someone else might not believe in Christianity.

> Amendment 15
> (March 30, 1870)
>
> Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude--
>
> Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
> --
>
> How, exactly, does calling someone a derogatory term based on race deny
them their rights as United States citizens?

Loose interpretation of the Constitution would provide that if you were to
resort to derogitory name calling, you are abridging the right of that
person to be in that area to hear that offensive material. Note I stated
that I follow a looser intrpretation of the constitution then what is
stated. My reason for this is that our founding fathers wouldn't have
anticpated some of the future problems that may have risen.. such as this.

> Ejecting an atheist because you're a Christian? I think not. 'GD' is
offensive to most Christians, and most people know that. Whether *you* find
it offensive or not, it's still a worthless thing to say. Constant cursing
is completely un-necessary.
>

Not only Atheists.. Jewish people do not believe "god" is their diety..
Johava is the god, not god. So the equal statement would be "Johava damn."
The same goes for Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists, etc al.. The fact
that someone else would eject on basis that "god" is the only diety is
strictly inposting your religion on them. Not all Christians find "god
damn" offensive. Yes, constant use of saying "god damn" would be
inappropriate.. but one time isn't anything to be especially "moody"
towards. Mute them if you find it offensive and no one else does.

> No one in this world is exactly alike; however, the world would be a
*much* nicer place if each individual would take some simple steps to try
and consider other people's beliefs and race. That would solve the entire
problem altogether.
>

Yes it would, but it also goes the opposite way, you must also take into
respect that not everyone follows YOUR beliefs. That comes before someone
else can take in your situation. Which is a paradox :) because in that
you'd be following what you said first. The.. "follow your own advice"
cliche comes to mind.

> Hmm... I'll borrow this from you.

Go ahead. As long as it's in a respectiable manner.


> Not everyone finds the "F" word offensive, which was one of your theme
points to begin with.

No it wasn't, it was not everyone finds "damn" or "god damn" offensive. And
if you do, the simple mute feature takes care of that. But Brant brought in
new points which needed to be pointed out were not in the same context.

> Bah... assumptions.

I wasn't the one whom assumed.. I merely pointed out that not everyone has
the same beliefs as the one who finds it offensive.

--Bowen--

Dec 29, 2001, 11:10pm

Yes but if someone were to bring it as far as they could.. some severe
things could happen to both them and AW. Guidelines are meant to be
followed under the law, not to whatever another person wants.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Dec 29, 2001, 11:12pm

If you use this product, it has to follow american rules.. and if you use
this product.. anything you do with it must abide by those same laws.
Simple as that. Welcome to the world of copyrights.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Dec 29, 2001, 11:14pm

> If you use this product, it has to follow american rules.. and if you use
> this product.. anything you do with it must abide by those same laws.
> Simple as that. Welcome to the world of copyrights.

sorry that didn't make sense..

AW's company and products have to follow American laws. If you use this
product.. anything you do with it must abide by those same laws..

--Bowen--

Dec 29, 2001, 11:39pm

> Copyright has nothing to do with this. The only thing close would be
contract law, since everyone agreed to the content/conduct guidlines and the
EULA when they installed AW.
>

The only way American laws can apply to a product is if it's copyrighted.
That's why if you copyright things, it's illegal to make a copy all over the
world, because it has to follow International laws. *copying is only a small
thing which copyrights cover* But since this is copyright in America and
Internationally.. you also have to follow America's laws while using this
product. So if you break an American law while using this.. you're running
a risk of prosecution. Same goes with other products such as ISP's.

> Not really. If I do something in AW that's illegal in America but not in
Canada and doesn't violate the things I agreed to when installing AW, who is
going to prosecute me?
>

The person whom was offended has every right to prosecute you if they're in
America.. and you're using that American product. If not they probably
won't feel the need since it may not violate their country's laws. Just
because a company puts things in it's EULA doesn't mean it's legal.. I've
come across it before, but AW doesn't violate American laws.

--Bowen--

Dec 30, 2001, 12:16am

May I see your Masters in law? You're only proving what's true with
Canada's products.

EULA's can only be legal if they're under accordance to the laws of the
company to which the product that you're using is copyrighted. If you agree
to the EULA of a company in America.. you've just agreed to follow those
rules and America's laws in accordance to that product.. anything illegal
you do with that product that's illegal in the country of the company, is
punishable. That may not be the case with Canada's laws but it's true here.
Since you're not from America, you can't specualte which laws you will
follow while using this product.

>They can try to sue, I suppose... But how will they force me to appear in
court?

You can be dragged from your country as easily as you can be hunted down by
the FBI or CIA for that matter. Just because you're in Canada doesn't mean
you can break the laws of America while using American products or services.

>Yes, it does. Anything reasonable in an EULA is legally binding. EULAs are
just as good as a paper contract now. I have heard of portions being struck
down because they were a little bit "much", but otherwise everything in it
is "legal".
>

It's legal if you're writing it in accordance with American law *since it
still is an american product* You can't just write something that violates
laws such as "I give you the legal right to hold stolen funds in this
account, we can't be held responsable neither can you." That's just an
example.. I can't emphasize this enough. If it violates the laws of the
country to which the company belongs, it's illegal. This entire debate is
about American law, nothing else since AW is not a foreign company. I don't
care if you're from Timbukto.. if you do not act in accordance to American
law, you can be prosecuted to the full degree that the law allows. A EULA
does not have the power to surpass laws. This topic has strayed to far away
from the original topic.. :), if you don't mind I'd like to stop it now..
it's too long LoL.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2001, 12:30am

It depends on the product or service used.. and who was wronged in the
process.. that's how you can be prosecuted, also if you break any laws in
your own country. You were exactly right.. maybe I didn't put it in clear
enough words and that's why no one understood me? So if you use the
American gun and shoot an American tourist.. you can be prosecuted not only
by American laws but those you violated in your own country :)

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2001, 1:17am

LoL I told you you shouldn't get into that good stuff again, you're sounding
loony Moff. :)

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2001, 2:17am

> Yes, it was one of your *theme* points. Your point was to consider that
some people don't have the same views as you do, and here you are saying
that *all* people find 'the F word' offensive. That's hypocrytical.
>

They find it offensive.. but they'll use it. I find it offensive but I
still use it, it's meant as such a word as to be offensive hence why it's
considered a "cuss" word. Any other representation of it is falsified and
doesn't conform to G rated regulations. It's a sementic argument. Just
because someone uses a word doesn't actually mean they don't find it
offensive :). The good majority how is that? I tend to generalize on the
English language use but I forgot to take in the fact that it's being
blundered. Sorry for the generalization that the "F word" is offensive to
everyone.

--Bowen--

Dec 30, 2001, 2:38am

> I see no purpose for cursing in the first place (unless you slam your
finger in the car, you are angry beyond control, etc); however, I am not
offended when people do so. You are correct that some people would not
people offended by words such as 'GD', but many others would. Therefore, I
think that any public international place such as AW should be kept
non-offensive for everyone and keep a standard rule set for everyone to
follow, such as it is.
>

Right :) this is what I was getting at originally.. but I got mad at people
contradicting my original point saying that it's offensive to them so it
should not be allowed. Sorry about that. I agree to that but damn itself,
which is what cozmo said, isn't really offensive at all.. but if you do find
it offensive without the god.. sorry but you can mute them. As for the
other words, there's no excuse to say it in a public GZ, or anywhere really
:).

--Bowen--

Dec 30, 2001, 3:36am

> Bowen buy a clue.

Please don't comment unless you know the actual point. You cannot forepass
any laws of the country to which the company registered it's product in..
read one of the branch-off's of this post by nornny. Don't turn this into a
personal attack either.

--Bowen--

Dec 30, 2001, 4:21pm

Read Nornny's post, it explains exactly what happens when you use an
American product and violate an American law. If you use AW, think of it as
American territory, you're responsible to follow our laws while you're using
it. You said yourself in an earlier post that EULA's can set anything they
want. I don't need a masters in law when I'm from the US and we're talking
about an American product, you on the other hand do, since you don't know
any of our laws besides what the internet tells you. Copyrights set to
where the product belongs, if the browser is copyright in america, you're
using that american product.

Any country can impose it's laws while you're in it's territory, while using
AW you are in American territory buddy, albeit virtual, it's still American.
If this was a German Universe I would have to follow German laws, as would
you. Not all countries have the same laws. Such as Canada does not have
the same freedoms we Americans do.

If you did something illegal through AW, if it was severe enough you could
get your rear prosecuted. Canada wouldn't have much choice but to turn you
over, credit fraud for example.. repeated offenses can get your thrown in
jail over here.

You're using AWC's browser, you're in American owned territory, American
laws apply to you, plus Canada's.

The problem is you believe you're immune from laws unless it's Canadian..
it's pretty obvious if you're in someone else's territory, you can get
prosecuted by the laws which they must follow as well. Yes, before you say
AW isn't "territory" it is, it's virtual. Think of it as walking the lines
which connect where you are in Canada to the servers in Boston, then back..
you'd have to walk through American land right? Thus it's laws apply to you
as well using the software. This is relative if you're really talking to an
American or not.. but still could happen if you're not and you get caught.

--Bowen--

--Bowen--
[View Quote]

Dec 31, 2001, 12:16am

LoL :)

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 6:30pm

Cutting down those 3d homepages would be the wisest choice.. there goes a
good chunk of the money they need.. I would also be willing to pay $30.. not
$100 +. Partnerships with a big company.. let's say AOL would generate
quite a lot of needed funds. There would be a possibility of half a million
immigrants coming to AW. Not only that, but AW's partners would want to get
in on some of this technology and have universes.. so that's more money for
them. They're not the only ones in an economic slump.. we also take part in
it. They're going to lose most of their customers with this.. and that is
not a good thing.

--Bowen--

Jan 2, 2002, 6:44pm

Juno can't really be considered a good partner.. it took me an hour to find
a link to the activeworlds free cit. Even then I didn't qualify because I
wasn't a "premium" user. There's quite a few companies that would probably
take on a partnership. A company losing a couple thousand into AW would be
much less hurtful then me giving up $100 for something that might not
continue for long. As this letter states.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 7:04pm

LoL AOL charges $21 a month where I live :). Maybe you used it 10 years ago
before the inacted that "one time pay" policy? Yeah I hated that too... I
use Timewarner's Cable access.. pretty good for $40 a month :)

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 10:53pm

Well some are FPS combat.. while others are actual RPG's in their entirety.
AW just doesn't have the features to compete with them at the moment.. they
also have a lot of realisitc features aw doesn't.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jan 3, 2002, 6:17pm

Wow I agree don't to the point of what you said. :) All of these would
generate great revenue for them.. in reality their marketing "expert"
doesn't know about long term investments and how communitys react to a MAJOR
increase. If he did he'd realize that in order for businesses to avoid debt
first you cut back company spending.. that always comes first, then you
cutback salaries.. which means no more $100+ K for Rick and JP.. you can
quite comfortably live on $60 K. If all else fails, raise prices a small
percentage no more then 75%. If you're still pulling negatives, you get a
darn loan out. Also you shouldn't specialize in 1 service.. diversify..
that's what keeps companies going.. AT&T doesn't just do local calls, they
do long distance, internet, cell phones, etc. Just my two cents :)

--Bowen--

[View Quote] [View Quote] I agree with that wholeheartedly.

> I thought you hired a marketing person. Why aren't they generating
advertising revenue?

Good question. AWC has had YEARS to get this part of it right, but all I've
seen is one expensive mistake after another. I don't personally know the
marketing person they've hired, but generally speaking, most marketing types
know what they are doing (they have to, it's a competitive field), so I have
to wonder: Are the marketing person's efforts being hampered by the
decisions of upper management? If so, then upper management needs to back
off and let the marketing person do their job the right way, without upper
management interference. That is what they were hired to do, so let them do
their job. It is the marketing person's job to create the company image, to
promote that image, to enhance that image, to work with the financial
officers to seek investors and partnerships and work with those partners in
a mutually beneficial environment (in marketing, AWC and it's partners could
ALL benefit from this person's efforts, but they need to let this person do
their job), to work with upper management in planning the future growth and
development of the corporation and the product - but to do that, upper
management needs to give the marketing person a voice in the decision making
processes, and upper management needs to learn to listen to what the
marketing person is recommending, as well as listen to it's long-time users,
builders, modelers, and content developers.

Up to the present time, I don't believe that that is what upper management
has been doing. They have been making decisions from *on high* and
forcefully pushing their own agendas... and look where it's gotten them.
They need to realize that their old model of doing business will not lead
them to future success, but to failure and bankruptcy of the corporation.
They need to be willing to really listen to new ideas, really listen to the
needs of the users and world owners and other content developers... not just
give lip service to the concerns raised by them.

Marketers do not just market to people outside the corporation, they must
also have their ears and eyes open to what the end users, world owners, and
other content developers are saying and doing. Any marketing expert can
tell you that Word of Mouth is the absolutely BEST way to promote a product
or service (and the least expensive way, too). If the users, world owners,
and content developers are unhappy, you can bet your bottom dollar they are
talking about it and telling others of their dissatisfaction... and that is
NOT the kind of marketing AWC needs right now.

Part of the problem, too, is that some of the users have been quite nasty in
their correspondence with AWC management. These are business people we are
dealing with, not creative artistic types, so we, as users and world owners,
need to address them in ways that they can relate to, and you (Casay) have
done so in this post. We need others to be able to write such posts and
letters clearly, concisely stating what they think needs to be done to make
AWC a success in the future... and to do it in a polite, business-like way
as if you were addressing the Board of Directors (which you are), not
snarling and swearing at people like an armed angry mob. If you were upper
management, would you listen to the angry mob types? Not likely.

> I'd think because your user total at any given time is low, too low to
sell
> ad space. They have to be fighting a losing battle without having
thousands
> of ppl on-line at a time.

True, which is why I think the marketing person's efforts have been hampered
by upper management. Either that, or the marketing person they hired does
not know how to do marketing (I don't really think that, but I'm not in a
position to be able to determine what efforts this person has proposed, and
which have been approved or rejected).

> Go to Pogo.com and learn. See how MANY people are on that site and any
given
> time. They don't charge. Why not see about making some kind of deal with
> them or someone to provide the games in 3D? What about games.com or EA?
If
> you want to charge so much per month you better start providing some good
> content! Put the Gaming worlds and other types under world content
sections.
> It's too easy for someone to come in, see a few really bad worlds and
never
> come back. Games is where it's at on the Internet right now. Ditch the
whole
> AW mall idea and also the 3D web pages for now. They are terrible imho
> anyway. All this can be done with the current technology. Get some Case's
> ladder leagues going in there. Get hundreds of ppl in game rooms at a time
> well, there's your advertisers and the $ from them instead of from users.
> Games, games, games and more games!!!!!!! Umm contact Hasbro!!!! ;-)

YES YES YES!!!! You want to talk gaming? How about some decent prizes for
some of the games they already have? If AWC could establish partnerships
with the right companies, they could give away some really GOOD prizes,
which would, in turn, attract more users (and more corporate partners),
increase user participation in the games they already offer, and word of
mouth promotion about how great the prizes are would spread from one end of
the net to the other. How many people would be willing to go into AWBingo
if they knew they had a chance to win a free copy of Caligari TrueSpace, or
Adobe Photoshop, or Painter, or ZBrush, or a Nomad Jukebox, or a Palm Pilot,
or a 5.1 surround speaker system, or a Wacom Intuos2 graphics tablet, etc.?
I would, for sure!! [And if they need more ideas along those lines, hey,
marketing person, contact me. I'm sure we could work something out.]

How do they attract corporate partners to get those prizes to give away at
the games? First off, create a world and invite the best modelers,
builders, and content developers (website designers, music afficianados,
etc.) into it (AW should know who they are, they give away Cy Awards every
year, right?). Let those expert users build an AWC showcase world to show
these prospective corporate partners what is possible in activeworlds.
Allow these modelers and builders and content providers to display their
contact information so that they can get subcontracts from the new corporate
partners. THEN, have the AWC marketing person make appointments with the
people in those corporations who have the authority to make partnerships,
and actually bring them into the "Showcase World," as well as into some of
the best, most fully-developed worlds within activeworlds (not just AW-owned
worlds, but privately owned worlds, too); describe what's been done and by
whom; describe what possibilities they can foresee for promoting those
corporate partners, if only they had their own world here in activeworlds,
right?; promote the modelers and world builders and content providers (hey,
wouldn't some of you like to get subcontracts for some of those corporate
worlds???)... and sell those corporations their own worlds and the hosting
services to go with those worlds! Show them how activeworlds could benefit
their corporation, show them the tools that a 3-D world can offer that no
2-D website can even come close to. Sell them advertising in key areas
within alphaworld and awgate, sell them ad space in the building yards and
at the AWSchool world, sell them advertising on the website, and how about a
text ad at the bottom of the AW newsletter every month? Make reciprocal
agreements with those corporate partners so that they carry prominent ads
for AWC on their products and on their websites (and make sure the AWC ads
are not buried on page 126 of those sites, but on the front page!).

AWC, are you listening?

Once they got that part right, then they could start thinking about more
games with more sophisticated interfaces, and even BETTER prizes. Wouldn't
it be kewl to go on a treasure hunt and find an all expense paid trip to St.
Thomas, or even to the AW Reunion in Vegas (or wherever)? Get the new
corporate partners to use their marketing people to attract even bigger
crowds of users. The snowball effect would catch on in a hurry. AWC would
have more money for research and development, marketing and promotion,
infrastructure and upgraded equipment, and eventually they wouldn't have to
charge anything at all for citizenships.

<snip>
> I think, AW is still the best 3D technology available at this time.

So do I... and so do a lot of other people.

<snip>
> Build it and they will come, build the games, don't charge, they WILL
come.
> Let the advertisers pay not the citizens!

EXACTLY!

Áine

Jan 3, 2002, 6:21pm

LoL don't = down my bad

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 5:37pm

Yes that's what it means.. I'm not liking it and if you don't like it
either.. send an e-mail or snail mail to Rick. Tell him how you feel about
it and don't just say "This sucks change it back" put reasons for it. I
certainly don't have the money to pay for a citizenship under this new
system. My parents are already sketchy about it enough. :) *watches the 20
days left on cit tick by*

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 5:54pm

I totally agree with your opinions Coz.. the good majority of AW, I would
say, is teens (hence why AWTeen is extremely popular). Although there is
still a lot of adults, I would have to say the substantial majority is still
Teens. $100 some odd a year is quite a lot for a teen whom legally can't
work yet. This is why I am against this new system.. if it does go into
effect. I would expect the active users in AW to drop from around 500 to
about 100-200. How does everyone else feel about this? My big question
is.. do you want to lose, as Rick said, the people who love this and the
community? (in my opinion the people who enjoy using this aren't extremely
rich) Sure some will still be here, the ones whom can afford it.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 6:56pm

Yeah a lot of those are good points. AW needs to get into some
partnership.. we're all experiencing this economic slump, give us an SDK so
we can make our own browsers, or something else to that effect. *note don't
release the source code this could lead to some harmful factors* Make a
linux or mac version of it, I know a lot of people who would pay $20-30 a
year for a linux or mac version. There's a lot of other options that they
could do to lesson the burdon on us. Cutting 3d homepages for example, this
was a blunder the very first day 3.2 came out wasting the bandwidth and
driving their expenses up. Partnerships with other companies would be
another great way instead of "selling" the technology. Lowering the cost of
the world licenses by $20 would stimulate more people into buying worlds..
thus increasing revenue higher then it would normally be.. not by much but
it's more then they had. Taking out those free citizenships with the worlds
and lowering it another $20. These are all some ideas that AW could do to
get some money. How do you guys feel about these.. would they seem better
then charging US $120 a year?

--Bowen--

Jan 2, 2002, 7:02pm

I agree with dotar. Just because it's not a lot for you or other teens in
your area doesn't mean it isn't for all the rest of us.. minimum wage isn't
exactly "easy" to live off of, especially when it's $5 an hour where I live.
And not all teans can work 40 hours a week. Not all teens can get jobs
either.. competition for the 10 work spots at burger king LoL. I pay for
everything, haircuts, clothes, medical visits, all except room and board,
then there's college for me coming up at the end of this year.. it's kinda
hard for me, not to mention anyone else. :\ Why not lower do other things
which could increase revenue (3d homepages gone like dotar said)?

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2002, 7:13pm

Oooo good points :). That's what I'm saying, we're all in this slump from
that economy. The max I could work at a minimum wage job was 5 hours where
I live, because of all this.. everyone's getting to those jobs.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

1  ...  64  65  66  67  68  69  ...  101  |   Order by default