|
|
tart sugar // User Search
tart sugar // User Search
Aug 2, 2006, 2:02pm
ok ok
My apologies.
This was my first reunion and I guess my expectations for it was not
realistic. My fault. I chose to not do the "group stuff" downtown because I
knew it would be inconvenient and difficult for me to do so.
So many of the ppl attending this reunion I knew by either reputation in AW
or had worked with them on the CYs. I was looking forward to putting faces
to names and getting to know them.
I'm sure the majority of the ppl attending had a grand time.
*group hug* everybody.
[View Quote]"Elyk" <krfoerst at sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:44cfb6cb$2 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> At the time this reunion was planned, the committee didn't feel the need
> to charge attendees a fee to pay off a hospitality suite, but rather a fee
> is used to pay for events that everyone will be going to as a group. There
> should be no need for those going to have to pay for a hospitality room
> when a lot of them may not want to even spend time in there. (That's just
> my personal opinion however) Be that as it may, first planned reunion or
> not, Archergirl, Poseidon and the rest of the committee did a darn good
> job planning everything out and making sure everyone was accommodated for,
> which is the important part. The reunion fee went towards events and gift
> bag items and towards city passes for those who ordered them. Options were
> left open except for two required events schedule-wise because a lot of
> people like to explore on their own and the committee didn't want them to
> feel as if they were tied down to a strict schedule during the entire
> trip. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to plan a reunion. I think the
> "extra room" was efficient enough for the radio show that was planned on
> Friday night. This wasn't the first reunion where an extra room was booked
> you know.. it has been done in the past. :)
>
> Tart Sugar wrote:
|
Aug 2, 2006, 5:01pm
btw - I just wanted to add what a great conversation and laughs I had
Thursday night
with Archergirl, Elyk and Poseidon. Stacee popped her head in for a bit,
also, as did BlueMaxe. : )
[View Quote]"Tart Sugar" <tartsugar at comcast.net> wrote in message
news:44d0cc8a$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> ok ok
> My apologies.
> This was my first reunion and I guess my expectations for it was not
> realistic. My fault. I chose to not do the "group stuff" downtown because
> I knew it would be inconvenient and difficult for me to do so.
> So many of the ppl attending this reunion I knew by either reputation in
> AW or had worked with them on the CYs. I was looking forward to putting
> faces to names and getting to know them.
>
> I'm sure the majority of the ppl attending had a grand time.
> *group hug* everybody.
>
> "Elyk" <krfoerst at sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:44cfb6cb$2 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
>
>
|
Jul 27, 2006, 1:07pm
Banned from where? The Gate or AW?
[View Quote]"Lady Tigrane" <lady_tigrane at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44c8cc1b at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> With the advent of 4.1 several peeps in the community have gotten banned,
> with no proper explanation from the powers that be. Only a copy of the TOS
> being emailed back to them to "justify" the banning. Just for posting this
> I'm probably gonna be next but I think it's time this situation is
> properly addressed. Thoughts anybody?
>
|
Jul 27, 2006, 7:08pm
And here is the TOS
http://www.activeworlds.com/community/terms.asp
[View Quote]"Elyk" <krfoerst at sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:44c9130d$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> http://www.activeworlds.com/community/conduct.asp
>
> Those are the guidelines for ActiveWorlds. Below it states clearly the
> actions in which AWI holds the rights to do at anytime. It also clearly
> states that they withhold the right to disable or terminate an account at
> anytime without notification if they feel a user is being disruptive or
> not obeying the conduct guidelines within THEIR universe. Lady Tigrane,
> the fact of the matter is, is that AWI is not obligated to give you or
> anyone else an explanation on how they conduct their business or why they
> have removed or took action against someone that was probably causing more
> problems than you know about. Going by what you "hear" from those
> citizens, or citizens that tell you what they have heard is not always the
> wisest way to base your judgements. A lot of the posts that you have made
> are just that. You've taken things that you have heard and have assumed
> that the company is being completely irrational. Anytime a user is
> disabled or even banned for that matter, there is usually a pretty good
> reason behind it. However, they are not obligated to sit down with
> everyone and explain to you why they did it.
>
> Lady Tigrane wrote:
> <snip>
|
|
