1  ...  6  7  8  9  |   Order by default

Dec 16, 2004, 12:26am

I agree with Rossy-People are taking their religious biases too far. What
harm can allowing homosexuals in AWRPG bring? not a damn thing. You can't
procreate in virtual reality. You don't get legally married over the
internet. Hell their RPG gods aren't even considered 'real', so why is this
such a big moral issue? Seriously, why do RPGers feel the need to control
every petty little detail of someone's personal life on a 3d chat of all
things? When did it become so hard to respect someone's lifestyle choice in
RL and put your fake, 'medieval' morals aside? This just furthers my belief
that AWRPG is cult-like.

[View Quote]

Dec 16, 2004, 3:53am

I would agree if they didnt allow straight relationships as well, but when
they deem homosexual relationships inappropriate, that's flat out
descrimination.

[View Quote]

Dec 25, 2004, 5:22am

if your world was for tourists, "abuse it, you lose it. You abused it, you
lost it." doesn't really apply to a citizen newsgroup :P

[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2004, 9:28pm

It's humor. If you think this is so horrible, why not ban nude sculptures
from museums and their photos from textbooks? they reveal a hell of a lot
more, and I'm pretty sure you'll find photos of those works of art in nearly
any public school textbook. But you're worried about a christmas card?
posted in a 3d chat? where it is the users choice whether to click it or
not? I'm sure if their parents cared about them potentially clicking links
like that they'd be supervising them a heck of a lot more anyways, being as
the entire purpose of AW is to talk to complete strangers, which any
paranoid parent I'm sure would not want their child doing alone.

[View Quote]

Jan 29, 2005, 3:12am

lol at "thoughtcrime". this situation reminds me of when Tart Sugar ejected
me for saying 'badass' without a warning just because it was a compound
word. then ejected me again when asking "why was I ejected for saying
bad***?" for 'masking a swear word'. it seems GKs can bend the rules all
they want to make their shifts more conveiniant for them. hell why bother
resolving the problem in a polite manner when you can just repetatively
eject someone who says something you don't like? situations like this never
cease to amaze me. dealing with a GK has become similar to dealing with an
idiot savant. all they know how to do is eject and spam a macros. I used to
never get bitched at in AWgate, but lately I can't have a logical
conversation without being screamed at that DEBATES ARE NOT ALLOWED! I can't
state that I'm atheist without being warned that religious conversations are
prohibited-yet people can talk about god all they want there it seems so
long as the context is favorable. saying you're gay, well hell I never knew
that being gay was reason for eject, but saying you have a companion of the
opposite gender is acceptable? get over your personal biases and petty
bickering-don't bend the TOS and world rules to back up your crappy reason
for ejecting someone. if you don't like what someone says in AWGate on your
shift-hey there's mute. if you actually took time to learn the program
before eagerly applying to be a GK to get pretty bold text, maybe you'd be
able to notify other users of how to put that feature to use. you may even
gain enough sense to be able to answer questions new users have like you are
expected to do when you submit the application form-the day I see a GK
complete their shift giving 100% correct information regarding the program
is the day I drop dead from shock. the fact that AWI has let this
organization sink so low is sickening to me. every time I start up
activeworlds it's like waking up in nazi germany. granted there are a few
GKs, but the vast majority don't know jack about the program and are as I
see it, incredibly irresponsible.

[View Quote]

Feb 15, 2005, 6:25pm

A shame you're giving it away. Now we don't get to watch your life crumble
when it finally gets banned.

[View Quote]

Apr 4, 2005, 5:54pm

Seiya was disabled after deleting my property once obtaining my password
through stalking me and for harassing me through email, phone, and air mail.
To defend her without knowing the facts is absurd.

[View Quote]

Apr 5, 2005, 6:06pm

FYI Seiya and her friends were all blocked in every way possible by me, and
were still able to stalk me to the point where police were almost contacted.
Had AWI not interviened, they would have been. As you've seen from the
replies by people before the reason for her being disabled was known, not
knowing the facts may only allow those who do not abide by the rules of this
program such as Seiya to get away with abuse. I stand by all statements I
have ever made regarding her, as they are the truth and I think all users
have a right to know what they will potentially get themselves into when
getting involved with this individual. If you see things differently, that's
fine, however this users abuse extends for years which I assume you are not
aware of being as you are a relatively new citizen. She has been blocked by
everyone under the sun yet her harassment continues. What this person has
done IS illegal and AWI had every right to and was justified in disabling
her account and the others involved. It's not a matter of being paranoid,
this has happened to numerous users aside from myself. There comes a point
when action must be taken, as letting someone abuse others to this extent by
as you put it "just blocking them" and ignoring them, is not a solution.

[View Quote]

Apr 5, 2005, 6:53pm

The provocation here stems from users finding out Seiya was not who she
claimed to be (a 16 year old female-she was using a fake photograph to lure
people into relationships with her). I really don't think someone's building
skill has any importance when it comes to breaking the law.

Yes you may have had an 'unpleasant' expierience with me, or some of the
others who posted-I still find you ejecting me repetatively without warning
from AWGate for using the word "badass" to be downright unethical. Forgive
me if it offended you when I questioned your actions, but being told I
cannot say something without a reason as to why it is offensive is simply
illogical to me. Especially when it is regarding a compound word with no
vulgar meaning in the context it was used in, simply because it contains the
word "ass".

[View Quote]

Apr 10, 2005, 6:09am

Apparently you do not know me well-I have no standing in AWteen as you
claimed.
"Badass" is not 'vulgar' slang, it's just slang. It means the same thing as
"cool" for instance in modern days. You have yet to explain to me just how
that is vulgar, and I have given up on ever getting a satifactory response
in that regard. I also find it strange that you ejected me for saying
"badass" but not the english version, "badarse". Why is that? It means the
same and is equally vulgar by your logic. Further more, the first time I was
ejected, I recieved NO warning and NO explanation. Upon returning to AWGate,
I asked "why was I ejected for saying 'bad***?' " and was ejected once more
for "masking a swear word". This to me is GK abuse, it cannot be justified
by claiming a word contained a vulgar word, that's not how the english
language works. Words are considered bad due to their MEANING not due to
their SPELLING.

[View Quote]

Apr 11, 2005, 4:53am

Everyone who has replied has yet to explain to me just what offensive
meaning there is to the word 'badass'. All you have said so far is that it
*contains* a vulgar word. Well if that's the case, I may as well claim the
word 'grass' is offensive. As I said before, just because a word contains a
word that is vulgar, does not make it vulgar. Just because some parts of the
world find it offensive doesn't mean people should refrain from saying it if
those people cannot even tell WHY they find it offensive. That's the problem
with people being petty about censoring other's nowdays. People jump at the
chance to keep people from saying things because they're taught those things
are bad. They don't know why they're bad, just that they're 'bad'. That's
like not voting for a candidate for president because ads on TV tell you
he's bad. You don't think for yourself and question why he's bad, you just
go with it and vote for the latter. It's ignorance.

Apr 11, 2005, 6:07pm

You posted the dictionary definition which was NOT the context I used it in.
I used it in the form of SLANG which has a completely different meaning, so
your argument is not relevant in this instance.


[View Quote]

Apr 11, 2005, 6:09pm

I am in fact fully aware of what a compound word is, but I am also smart
enough to realize that compound words do not have two meanings because they
have two words, something many people who are against my argument are
failing to comprehend. The word "bad" and the word "ass" do have negative
meanings, but "badass" does not. How is this so hard to realize? you're
judging a slang term for being negative because it is spelt the same as
negative words. You might as well find donkeys offensive for being called
jackasses, if the meaning of the word has no value, just the spelling, I
would assume this would be the case??


[View Quote]

Apr 11, 2005, 6:14pm

Thank you ORB, that's what I was trying to explain. I do realize that some
people may dislike people using the word (whatever reason they have for
feeling that way, justified or not is their own business), however a person
shouldn't be ejected for it without a warning when the word itself is so
subjective.

[View Quote]

Apr 11, 2005, 6:41pm

The "f word" the "s word" and "hell" are all derived from words with vulgar
meanings. Example-the "s word" as slang can be traced all the way back to
the indo-european root "skei", which means to split or separate; to
"separate" excrement from the body. Today's slang is simply that word
developed over the centuries. Passed through danish, dutch, swedish, german
and english terms to what it is today, a vulgar term used to describe feces.
To call someone feces I'm sure is offensive.

Try tracing the slang version of the term "badass". You will find nothing
vulgar. It means something along the lines of "cool" or "sweet" when used in
the slang context. The context we use it in as slang cannot be traced back
to any vulgar words. The literal meaning of the word of course can, but the
slang version cannot. So to classify "badass" in with the other terms you
used simply means you have no sense of the history of the words which you
consider bad.

[View Quote]

Apr 11, 2005, 10:29pm

You do realize how a dictionary works, right Tart? Badass is a slang word.
The "vulgar slang" it is referring to is the dictionary definition, NOT the
context I used it in. You STILL cannot explain to me how implying something
is 'cool' using different words is vulgar. All you're doing is repeating the
dictionary definition and going "Look! it's classified as slang!". Yes,
words can have multiple meanings, it does not make them all bad.

[View Quote]

Apr 11, 2005, 10:58pm

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=badass&r=f

If you go there you'll notice the numerous definitions the word has as a
slang word, as dictated by people around the world how they interpret it. I
personally do not consider the dictionary definition slang, being as it is
hardly used in that context today (that being it takes a more literal
meaning today than the other slang words spawned from it), however if you
want to be picky, technically it is (slang being informal language
consisting of words and expressions that are not considered appropriate for
formal occasions). That does not however, mean that all forms of the word
(which are slang) have the same meaning. If the dictionary definition is
catagorized as vulgar slang, that is because the definition in that sense IS
vulgar. However when used to express a friendlier topic, such as "that shirt
is so badass", I fail to see any offensive meaning. Yes, it's spelt the same
as the version considered 'vulgar' but writing is meant to be interpreted.
Depending on the context of words they have different meanings. Just like
"read", I read books. Or "read", I read Tom Sawyer. Jackass-as in a donkey,
or jackass in the sense of a disagreeable person. I would find it quite
idiotic to eject someone for having a conversation regarding donkeys, though
I understand why this word is ejectable via CA due to the term "donkey"
being used more frequently and the term "jackass" commonly used to abuse
others. I have yet to hear someone assult another person in AW by referring
to them as a "badass". That definition of the term is long out dated, and
now days the word is used to describe a characteristic of someone who is
rebellious or to describe something one finds favorable. Now I also have a
slight problem with everyone assuming the word "vulgar" automatically means
non-g rated. If you look at the definition for vulgar, it has a wide range
of definitions that apply to words like this, including the following: "Of
or associated with the great masses of people; common. Deficient in taste,
delicacy, or refinement.". Do I think the word "badass" is common? yes, I
do. Do I think it lacks refinement? of course, it's slang. I also found this
particular line quite interesting: " The word vulgar now brings to mind
off-color jokes and offensive epithets, but it once had more neutral
meanings. Vulgar is an example of pejoration, the process by which a word
develops negative meanings over time. "



[View Quote]

Apr 12, 2005, 1:12am

If it took 8 months to get a reasonable response, then it was worth it;
considering emailing the gatekeeper address takes roughly 1 year.

[View Quote]

Apr 12, 2005, 2:38am

Who am I trying to talk to with my arguments? The people who feel the need
to self moderate other's language involving subjective words they claim are
offensive, but cannot give a reasonable explanation as to why.I have not
called anyone names in my arguments, so I do not see where you got that
idea. I also don't see how explaining my point of view is disrespecting
their decisions. If that is the case, then anyone against my argument is
disrespecting my decisions as I am theirs, so that's quite a hypocritical
statement. Differing views would be a more adequate term. You ask how I hope
to argue against people being offended by the word. How can you be offended
by something if you do not even know why it offends you? Do 3 letters really
upset you that much if they don't even have a vulgar meaning implied in this
context? If so I must say that's fairly ludicrous. I really don't care
whether people change their minds regarding what they deem appropriate or
not, that's not my intentions. My only goal is to shed some light on the
logic people use when determining what words constitute 'bad' words-It's
these words which are often so subjective they lead to petty ejections,
which is something I hope will one day be resolved. It seems 'ejectable'
words not covered by the customs aid vary from gatekeeper to gatekeeper.
Some consistancy when asked not to use certain words would be nice, but how
can that occur when a word can be interpreted so many ways? If my goal to
you is to upset people, then I must say you are sadly mistaken. My sole
intent is to express my views just as you have done.


[View Quote]

Apr 12, 2005, 6:04pm

Or they're just corrupt :) If GKs can make up their own conduct guidelines
at their whim, as many seem to do, of course you can claim it's justified.
And FYI, I can't recall a single person I know as of late who has recieved a
response from the GKs within a decent allotment of time when it's regarding
a complaint. Most don't get a reply at all, which really does not surprise
me. And yet people wonder why the GK organization is going down hill.

[View Quote]

Apr 12, 2005, 6:29pm

I am complaining because I did not get a warning or explanation for the
eject. A person made a comment regarding my website's name, which contains
the word "badass". I said "badass?" and surprise, to the blue room it is.
Upon returning to the word I asked "why was I ejected for saying bad***?"
because I did not get an explanation and assumed that was the word I was
ejected for, being as I know how petty many GKs can be. I didn't email the
GK addy to question it, because emailing the GK addy for a response is like
asking an elephant to wade through peanutbutter. By the time I'd get a
response, assuming I got one at all, chances are it would be a completely
useless prewritten response anyways. In fact, the last 3 or 4 times I have
contacted GKs via email, I got returned mail because the addresses it
forwarded to were not working, so really, I decided a simple question would
be more efficiant. Unfortunately, due to that question I was again ejected,
this time for "masking a swear word". I for one fail to see how someone can
eject me without telling me why or warning me, then eject me again for
asking what I was ejected for, and self-censoring the word which I assumed
was questionable. Situations like this happen all the time, not just to me,
to tons of people. It's gotten to the point where GKs harass citizens more
than the other way around in my opinion. And when a citizen does cause
trouble for a GK, a lot of times I can't say it's unjustified anymore. I
used to defend a lot of the GKs because they took a lot of crap, but a lot
has changed in the past 3 or so years. When the majority (not all) treat
people as Tart did to me, I don't feel an ounce of pity for them. I used to
never get bitched at while in AWGate. Now I can't even have an intelligent
discussion without being told "Debates are not allowed". I can't say I'm
atheist either, because "religious discussions are forbidden at the gate"
(though the numerous christians who talk about god dont get such treatment
I've noticed). I can't use slang. I can't question why I can't use slang. I
can't post links to .jpg images because "They may contain a virus". And
don't get me wrong, not ALL GKs do this. See that's the beauty of it,
because no two GKs can have the same rules. That would make things too
simple. Citizens are left to assume what specific GKs may or may not flip
out about because they over censor absolutely everything. So I don't think
I'm being unreasonable when I get upset for being treated like just another
sheep-being slapped in the face by a GK and expected to just tolerate it.

[View Quote]

Apr 13, 2005, 2:33am

AWI and the head of the GKs are constantly nagged about how incompetant the
GK organization has become, it doesn't make a difference. When Tart stated
"I have, however, had some rather unpleasant run-ins with some of the other
ppl posting to this thread. One has to wonder what the provocation is here."
With the sole intent to discredit those who have been abused by Seiya,
without knowing an ounce of what Seiya has actually done, I find it
insulting that I can be put on par with an internet predator for something
as silly as questioning an unfair eject. I do feel it was necessary to say
just why her dealings with me have been 'unpleasant' as she implied it to be
something equally horrible to that which Seiya has done, which is not true.


[View Quote]

Apr 13, 2005, 2:40am

"I have, however, had some rather unpleasant run-ins with some of the other
ppl posting to this thread. One has to wonder what the provocation is here."
Your intent was to discredit those against Seiya by implying petty things
like my questioning of your eject to be worse than what Seiya had allegedly
done, therefore giving her a reason to be "provoked". I don't honestly
understand how my questioning your eject is worse than Seiya violating the
law, but it certainly seems like that was what you wanted to imply by not
mentioning just what caused these 'unpleasant' run-ins.


[View Quote]

Apr 13, 2005, 3:57am

Infuriate? I'm not infuriated. But I do find it funny how you assume I am.
Do I ask for it? of course, if I didn't want a debate, I do think I would
have stopped replying. And don't try your reverse psychology crap on me
Chris, it wont work :P

[View Quote]

Apr 13, 2005, 12:34pm

well being as few others who posted have given you a reason to dislike them,
I can't imagine who else it may be, except maybe Rossy if you don't have a
sense of humor. And even then, you implied that it was more than one
individual, so what else would one assume?

[View Quote]

Apr 11, 2005, 11:35pm

cool find, ORB. I've been looking for a site like this for a while now, as
our library here has few classic works of literature. Another site I came
across a few days ago is similar ( http://www.thefreelibrary.com ) and may
have some books bibliomania doesn't or vice versa

[View Quote]

1  ...  6  7  8  9  |   Order by default