1  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  23  |   Order by default

Jun 9, 2003, 4:23pm

I have no response for the first three lines.

"It's to protect against lawsuits should a person make a comment about the
tenant or landlord."

I see what your getting at.

"Probably a good thing since we have way too many lawsuits in courts
anyways."

Unless Oregon doesn't have a lot of money, I don't think the amount of
lawsuits being large is bad (but then again I wouldn't know, heh heh heh).

"Personally speaking, seeing all the negative stuff you have posted in THEIR
newsgroups, I'm surprised you haven't been banned from here:)"

Since they are physically loacted in the US, they have to follow all the US
laws, and (controversially) everything in the bill of rights to some degree.

"What is your intent by bringing this information to the newsgroup?"

No intent. Just impulsivity.

"Wouldn't a private handling of the situation been more advantagous for you
possibly?"

Possibly; possibly not.

"Just some food for thought and I hope you can get things resolved:)"

Don't worry, things are getting resolved. (-:

[View Quote]

Jun 10, 2003, 10:38am

Never recieved the promised e-mail or any semi-detailed information. All the
information we really got was swearing, and I know I did that, but of course
that can't be it unless your REALLY strict about it.

[View Quote]

Jun 10, 2003, 10:38am

Nah, it was true.
[View Quote]

Jun 10, 2003, 10:41am

Me, but I have ADHD (including the impuslivity and fidgeting), so I might
have just done it without even knowing it. Mental disorders = things which
should not exist.
[View Quote]

Jun 10, 2003, 10:42am

Guess I won't question AW's authority in public AW again, heh heh heh.
[View Quote]

Jun 11, 2003, 10:33am

Examples please (even though I know they are all over >:-P).

The worst thing about it is that I have a short, short temper, and it does
NOT help in terms of refraining.
[View Quote]

Jun 11, 2003, 10:35am

Which law, what section, where >_<. sorry, I don't have a lot of time today
to look, heh heh heh. I know its there, but oh well.
[View Quote]

Jun 11, 2003, 11:15am

:-P sorry, but YOU were making it your problem >:-P. lets stop, ok? heh heh
heh
[View Quote]

Jun 11, 2003, 11:15am

heh, I'm not messing with the boss man again >:-P
[View Quote]

Jun 4, 2003, 11:37pm

And I'm banned from the universe from swearing a few times >:-P isn't it
funny how things work around here?

[View Quote]

Jun 8, 2003, 11:24am

Doesn't matter how many times, if you don't get warnings it isn't fair. Also
it isn't fair if they don't show you what you did. For all I know, I
could've done nothing... I just said swearing because did do it a few times
(over the course of the 1 3/4 years I've been on AW). By few I meant 3-5
times. If I was banned for swearing, then it was not justified. Let's break
down the rule which most likely applies to my case (even though there is no
way to know), and possibly others to prove my point. I'll start by saying
that none of these are specific or straight forward enough to enforce
anything.

"Please do not engage in racial, religious, ethnic, or sexual slurs, lewd
comments, or generally disruptive behaviour in public areas." First off,
that is completely unspecific. There are no examples of things which apply.
It says "racial, religious, ethnic, or sexual slurs, lewd comments, or
generally disruptive behavior in public areas." It doesn't say "racial,
religious, ethnic, or sexual slurs SUCH AS calling someone a derrogitory
word." They should list them out (I didn't because I refuse to say them).
This part of the rule happens to be the most straightforward one, so most
people understand how to correctly comply; however, once I had to tell
someone that j.. was a racial slur, which is an example of why this part of
the rule is not specific enough. The next part of the rule simply says "lewd
comments." It doesn't say "lewd comments SUCH AS comments on reproductive
organs" and don't say lewd is straight forward, because even within the USA
what is considered obscene, vulgar, evil, and/or wicked is different in the
mind of each person (and many AW users are outside the US which makes the
differences greater). I don't even consider evil to exist. The most vague,
least specific statement is "disruptive behavior." It doesn't say
"disruptive behavior SUCH AS swearing." For all I know, disruptive behavior
could just be spamming and nothing else. It doesn't say what it is, and what
is considered disruptive varies from person to person as well as culture to
culture and sub-culture to sub-culture. Everything is relative. You might as
well tell a room full of high, middle, and low economical class people that
they have to give a lot of money to you, and expect nearly the same amount
from each person. Its absolutely stupid.

Second off, when writing rules, you should ALWAYS give a specific punishment
for each rule. That's how it is for laws, so thats the way it should be for
rules (and is in most cases). For all I know, lewd comments could be an
instant ban, while insults could NEVER result in a ban. They could all have
the same punishment for all I know, which is completely stupid because slurs
are clearly much more severe than shouting or simple disruption.

Third off, you have almost no idea what this can mean: "Activeworlds Inc. or
its associates reserve the right to enforce compliance with these
guidelines, which may include temporary ejection from the world." It isn't
specific at all. All you know is that you can be temporarily ejected. There
should be a table of punishments instead of a vague statement. There is
nothing in that even hints "if you violate these rules 10 or 11 times at an
AwInc world GZ then you are liable for universe ejection under the conduct
guidelines."

The content guidelines don't matter in this case, because that has to do
with builds, welcome messages, and other things like that. Those are
reasonably straight forward and specific, and its unfortunate that the
conduct guidlines are not the same.

Under the conduct guidelines of that page, I can have almost no idea what
could be against the rules, as well as almost no idea of what can happen to
me for violating them.

Definition of lewd (http://www.webster.com):

Main Entry: lewd
Pronunciation: 'lüd
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English lewed vulgar, from Old English l[AE]wede laical,
ignorant
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : EVIL, WICKED
2 a : sexually unchaste or licentious b : OBSCENE, VULGAR
- lewd·ly adverb
- lewd·ness noun

Complete conduct guidelines
(http://www.activeworlds.com/community/conduct.asp):
"The following constitute the general rules of behaviour while visiting
Active Worlds in Public meeting areas (areas within 400 meters of ground
zero). Please read these thoroughly.
a.. Please do not insult other tourists or citizens by use of inflammatory
or offensive statements or images. We ask that you refrain from expressions
of bigotry, racism, hatred, or profanity. Please do not harass other users,
including verbal abuse or personal attacks.
b.. Please do not engage in racial, religious, ethnic, or sexual slurs,
lewd comments, or generally disruptive behaviour in public areas.
c.. Public meeting areas are not appropriate spaces for cyber-sexual
behaviour, sexual orientation discussions or activity.
d.. The use of all caps is considered shouting, please refrain from using
caps unless you are intending to shout. Please refrain from flooding
(continuous posting of repetitive text)as this can be annoying to users.
e.. Activeworlds Inc. or its associates reserve the right to enforce
compliance with these guidelines, which may include temporary ejection from
the world."

[View Quote]
begin 666 audio.gif
M1TE&.#EA$ `+`+,``,X`(?___P``````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````"P`````$ `+```$(C#(&0" at F-HK>=Y>I8&6:'8D
3IT[I>K9=C)*R![L8J&4S.T4`.P``
`
end

Jun 9, 2003, 4:37pm

You shouldn't be nasty, it isn't a good habit.
>:-P sorry, I'd rather not conform and not be a normal person (or user in
this case).
If life is easy, why live?
[View Quote]

Jun 10, 2003, 10:35am

"This is nothing more than cheap entertainment.....LOL" - Nasty thing to say

"Hows about just rolling with the flow instead of always bucking the system?
You'd be amazed how easy life really is." - Also nasty

"ME? NASTY? hardly kiddo. I don't get ejected." - Also a nasty thing to
say.

I was ejected for swearing, not being nasty like you are. All of those are
quite nasty things to say, and you clearly don't understand anything. I'm
almost 100% sure I was banned for swearing. If they banned for attacks and
nastiness of the boards, you'd be gone by now. Clearly you critisize me
because I question authority, because I don't conform 100%. Good luck
'trying' to change me (and that's a nasty thing to say right there >:-P).

"oh and here's a warning for you to bank....."your gonna be ejected"
sooner or later...i can tell....there are ya happy?" = another nasty way to
say something

No, I will stay away from public worlds, because I like to voice my opinion,
and it drives me crazy if I can't. If I want to hang out in a world with a
lot of people, I'll do it in A!!CT where they don't care if you voice your
opinion, and in fact start an intelligent conversation out of it instead of
dismissing it and telling you to go to AWDebate which is ALWAYS empty (and
thats nasty there too, but its the truth).

Ok, now I'm going to say something nasty >:-P. Please DO NOT take the time
to respond to my post if it is just going to be like the other ones. Making
nasty little posts that have no point and don't back up what they say in any
way shouldn't be posted. All it will do is result in arguements, dislike,
and other bad things.

[View Quote]

Jun 11, 2003, 10:31am

"ok here as nice as i can say...your a troublemaker.....:) you think
swearing is cool just cause you have the right to."

Not really. I was banned from swearing every few months. I have high blood
pressure and I get angry very quickly, and it slips out.

"You have very little respect for others but demand respect from others."

True sometimes, but mostly I disrespect others when they disrespect me or
someone else. In fact, I even pointed out where I was disrespectful >:-P.

"Now for the nasty stuff...
Have a nice day twit.
Leo :)"

Nah, you did a better job before.

[View Quote]

Jun 4, 2003, 11:50pm

Its horribly managed... I mean they don't ban people who ruin entire events
multiple times and vandalize, but they banned me for swearing a few times.
Its ridiculous. They have horrible service and don't even respond to any
e-mails asking for a reasonable debate or any kind of appeal. They don't
give half the bingo prizes and more, its just ludicrous.

And lady, I respect free speech a lot, so I'm not going to complain to
anyone, but it really is offensive to say that people are evil because they
aren't believers in a certain diety. It is people like you who treat people
badly because of what they are which bring the community down, not people
who have a different religion or no relgion and aren't even doing anything
to harm anyone else. Please don't be prejudice, it really is an awful thing.

[View Quote]

Jun 11, 2003, 10:35am

And you critisize me for being nasty...
[View Quote]

Jun 30, 2003, 2:49pm

Yes I am.

[View Quote]

Jun 6, 2003, 8:33pm

I was banned, but yet I still don't have examples of why. I don't mind being
banned, but could you please send an e-mail to me at ncommons at attbi.com with
the things I did? Its a perfectly reasonable request, and I would appreciate
it very much.

Thank you,
..Duo. (342836)

P.S. Don't cancel the cit, I plan to give it away if I am permanently
banned.

Jun 7, 2003, 7:10pm

Yeah, I know...
[View Quote]

Jun 7, 2003, 7:11pm

You think I haven't? I just get no response...
[View Quote]

Jun 8, 2003, 9:33am

Citizens advice bureau? What and where is that?
[View Quote]

Jun 9, 2003, 4:58pm

Oh, THAT ONE. heh heh heh
[View Quote]

Jun 11, 2003, 10:37am

Ok.

Please no more responses to this ropic, they aren't needed.
[View Quote]

Jun 10, 2003, 11:02am

Agreed 100%. Most people who do something bad do it on their own accord, or
because of some mental illness. The 'persuasion of children, sometimes to
produce a negative effect' happens rarely, if it all.

If you want a more accurate statement about people being bad on AW, here it
is: quite often people are bad because they are depressed, and have to make
others feel bad to make them feel good about themselves. That has been
proven hundreds of time.

[View Quote]

Jun 11, 2003, 10:59am

As I always say, its all relative. If you mean to talk about 3 and 4 year
olds, they aren't on AW. How 'children' should be treated should not be a
general statement. Every person differs. From the way I talk, how old would
you say I am? I know some people who are 56 who are easier to pursuade then
someone I know who is 8. You don't need to 'protect' children. Only ones
raised by super-conservative parents (possibly like yourself) are vunerable.
I've been in 'X' rated worlds before. Some have very 'strong' content, and
some just want only adults in the world. There is nothing wrong with a
little exposure, it will happen eventually anyway. The only difference is
that it makes a person more prepared for things they may encounter in life.

"I think the only thing anyone in the community can do is nip the situation
in the bud as it arises. I really don't think starting a crusade on the
subject is going to help. Unless you know a way to round up all the children
in all the worlds and shove them all into a single child friendly world with
24 hour in world supervision? I dont' think so."

What situation? What are you talking about? Shoving all the 'children' into
one 'child friendly' world would be horrible. Limiting freedoms is bad, but
doing it so people will be more naive, more vunerable to things, etc. is
horrible, especially beacuse you are considering all the people the same.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME, and therefore you can not judge them the same. As I
said, you cannot consider all 'children' the same. They are normal people,
not naive 'innocent' little people, unless of course they are raised by
conservative parents. They are people, individuals, not some flock of
animals that you can herd somewhere.

"I tought my children about bad things that can happen in the
net. I tought my children to have common sence." which is fine.

"And when my children are in the net, even in AW, there is a parent there to
make sure they don't get
them selves in trouble." Only if you left them compeltely naive will they
ever get into trouble.

"The Internet, even AW, is not a babysitter."

As it shouldn't be. Whether a person needs a babysitter or not is up to the
parents, not someone else.

The parents should have the say on what their children should be exposed to,
not you or a world owner.
[View Quote]

Jun 11, 2003, 11:05am

I think she isn't listening to anyone, she doesn't understand that a 'child'
unless unexposed is an intelligent human being, not some vunerable naive
person vunerable to be persuaded to do bad things.

I half agree, I would say that applies to children, not 'children' (I would
say children are people 1-when they are exposed to some things, generally
within the range of 4-7). The definition of 'children' are people 0-18,
which is wrong, and has been proven wrong by psychology. It all depends on
what you rate maturity on.
[View Quote]

Jun 11, 2003, 11:06am

Agreed 100%
[View Quote]

Jun 11, 2003, 11:07am

No it isn't, it is the responsibility of the parents, since the parents know
the 'child' and the community doesn't. You don't want someone like you
raising someone like me. Completely different views and everything.
[View Quote]

Jun 11, 2003, 11:11am

Discipline also should be determined by parents only.

Watching out for should be done by friends and oneself, not strangers.

Teaching is only the responsibility of the community if the person wants it
to be.

Raising is done by the parents and the person themself.

Look, I don't mean to be a jerk, but PLEASE do not force your political
views down people's throats, just like you tried to do with your religion.
[View Quote]

Jun 11, 2003, 11:13am

Yeah, but considering that very few 'children' need that, or are even that
vunerable, it isn't needed. Day care is for very young people, not all
people under 18.
[View Quote]

1  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  23  |   Order by default