1  2  3  4  |   Order by index

Mar 15, 2003, 1:29am

Umm, no. What they need to do is tell the GKs that, if they can tell a
heated debate is about to get started, they tell the people to move it
to AWDebate, and eject them if they refuse. That way, you keep people in
AWGate sane, and AWDebate starts to get visitors! :)

[View Quote]
--
Goober King
The best of both worlds
gooberking at utn.cjb.net

Mar 15, 2003, 10:45am

hmmm... I have checked the website concerning conduct and I do not see
that debates are mentioned in the rules...

example of a 'possible' conversation;
user1: I bought a new computer today :)
USER2: What did you buy?
user1: Deell
Hey Joe: Deell?
USER2: I had one and it was nothing but problems
user1: Well my brother had one for a year and it worked great
USER2: Deell should have gone out of business a long time ago IMO.
Hey Joe what do you think of Deell?
Hey Joe: The "Cow" is better

This is an example of a debate between three users just to pass the time until
someone moves things back to questions about the program.
No offense is intended by this post.
In MY Opinion chat is chat if done in a respectful way without demeaning
another, name calling or swearing. Yes, there are other worlds but if new rules
are to be applied, then AWI should include the words
'NO debates in AWGate' on the conduct webpage so all users would know.

[View Quote]

Mar 15, 2003, 12:12pm

Yup, I think that as long as you're not saying one religion is better than
another then it's not a problem, if you're just talking about maybe
differences and similarities or something to that extent. I DO think that
it's NOT ok if one person is calling another one offending names about their
religion. I also agree that debates should not be allowed at the gate. The
gate is a place to be friendly and chat and *enter* Activeworlds in a *nice*
place. If new people (first time users) come into the gate and see everyone
arguing 24/7 they'll get a bit disgusted by the people of AW and think we're
all bad. If you want to have a huge heated debate, do it somewhere where
there aren't a lot of people around... possibly only people you invite or
who actually want to listen to them argue. Is AWDebate tourist enabled?

[View Quote]

Mar 15, 2003, 2:38pm

that's exactly the type of conversation i'm referring to everytime i say a
'light' conversation or a conversation with small, normal 'arguing' and
'debating'. most all of us do it everytime we talk.

maki
[View Quote]

Mar 16, 2003, 4:47am

Are we confusing a debate with abuse? One does not have to abuse the person
one is debating with. Restricting the conversation to only carrot recipes is
totally different to asking some one that is getting out of hand within the
boundries of the debate/ normal conversation, to stop.


A Gatekeeper needs to recognise when the conversation is turning abusive and
step in, otherwise butt out. Telling ppl what to chat about is NOT the way.
There are many ways of making sure visitors to AWGate feel welcomed
.......giving them the false opinion that the whole of aw is ppled by Bunny
Rabbits or big nasty policemen is not very welcoming.

Mar 16, 2003, 7:31am

I program enough... I really cant stand all those *CRAP* little things like
! at and such in the chat that I feel like a blasted API stack :o

- Mark

[View Quote]

Mar 16, 2003, 7:33am

You were reading my mind :O

- Mark

[View Quote]

Mar 17, 2003, 3:39am

Ok, I cannot resist.

But president Bush is just teaching the world that one do not have to follow
rules and agreements, if they do not happen to suite one at the moment *g*
this is not political or anti-anything, just an observation)

Drac
binarybud <leo at realPANTStourvision.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e71f0c0$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> it's easy AW oewn AWgate and they do not want that crap there....
period....listen if they wanted only people with one hand comeing to the
gate guess what they can do that too.....just follow the damn rules and
your ok...and do not try to force YO ideas of how th egate should run on
others. we don't need debates and arguments at the gate....does that make
sense to you?
>
>
[View Quote]

Mar 17, 2003, 3:47am

One problem might be tho that tourists are not allowed into that many
worlds. How is it with AWDebate ?
Furthemore, to me it seems some people cannot see the difference between and
argument, conversation and fight.
If one want, one can "fight" about anything. Nice weather today, sun is
shining :) . I hate sunshine.....

Drac
binarybud <leo at realPANTStourvision.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e71efee$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> The Gate is a special place for helping newbies and others learn the
software and what AW is all about.
> People need to understand this....the Gate is NOT for debates of any kind.
It disrupts. What i do not understand is why people insist on gathering
there for their debates and harrassment of people.....then when they get
disiplinied they scream censorship....
> People just nee to learn the rules and learn what AWGate is for. After
that is real simple....EJECT!
> If you do not want to play by the rules of the gate then ejection is way
to easy to make ou comply.
> REMEBMER this If you have a hard time with authority then the gate is not
for you....because authority is what is needed at the gate in order for it
to run smoothly. There are hundreds of other worlds you can do what you
want in just leave the Gate alone.
>
> Leo :) aka BinaryBud
>
[View Quote]

Mar 17, 2003, 11:03am

Saddam Hussein was doing that long before Bush came around. ;P

[View Quote] --
Goober King
Who *hasn't* ignored the UN? :P
gooberking at utn.cjb.net

Mar 17, 2003, 11:24am

AWDebate is open to tourists, but what's the point of debate if nobody is in
a world?

It's not really the debate *itself* that is the problem...it's the
censorship that is unwelcoming.

[View Quote]

Mar 17, 2003, 11:25am

oh but then its all good , and if bush does , cant we all do that at awgate
? :)

Mar 17, 2003, 11:29am

Bush has nothing to do with AW.

End of THAT conversation.

[View Quote]

Mar 17, 2003, 11:33am

Oops, forgot smiley at the end.

:)

[View Quote]

Mar 17, 2003, 8:31pm

And the sheep follows the wolf to the slaughter.

:)

SW Chris

[View Quote]

Mar 17, 2003, 8:36pm

Why? Debates of an inflamitory nature cause chaos and an environment not
welcoming to visitors.

Chris

[View Quote]

Mar 17, 2003, 8:39pm

Then that problem is a lack of people to debate with, not a lack of places
to chat. And that is an entirely separate issue.

Chris

[View Quote]

Mar 17, 2003, 8:43pm

[View Quote] i think it *sounded* better without it. :)

maki

Mar 17, 2003, 8:45pm

Censorship is a token word that is thrown about by people who feel
threatened that they can't say anything they want when and where they want
to. Look around you. The world is full of censorship, even the United
States of America. In most cases, such censorship leads to a productive and
positive atmosphere. The question is not about censorship. It's the
question of this level of censorship creating a productive and positive
atmosphere in the Gate.

SW Chris

for helping newbies and others learn the
> kind.
After
way
> not
it
> respect
agree
> and
> with
discussion...
>
>

Mar 17, 2003, 8:48pm

if nobody's IN that world then apparently ya'll don't even really WANT to
debate so why argue about it? :) get a serious debate going in there, plan
it out, have it about the war or something you're just ITCHING to debate
about - and keep it out of the gate! :)

maki
[View Quote]

Mar 18, 2003, 1:52am

He kind of has, that is the sad part. He is the president of the most
powefull country and acts as a role model for many.
Power also brings responsibility and by setting a bad example one shows it
is ok to break rules and laws.

Drac
ryan jacob <ryan_jacob at hotmail.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e75cdca at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Bush has nothing to do with AW.
>
> End of THAT conversation.
>
[View Quote]

Mar 18, 2003, 1:53am

I am inclined to agree that AWGate is not the proper place to stage controversial political or religious debate. In a vastly international setting, emotions are too easily flared when conversation drifts towards these controversial areas.

It is easy to find support for my argument. I assume that you haven't missed the 'American Support' threads in general.discussion and worldbuilders. Do you see how even an innocent posting can get out of hand so quickly? The conflict exampled here is escalated by the fact that the users of this newsgroup come from so many different places, all of whom with differing opinions and views.

It is important to realize the distinction between disagreement and debate. The rules of AWGate do not deny the right to disagree - and even do not infringe upon polite, nondisrupting arguement - but state only that AWGate is not the proper place for *debate* (1. A discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal, 2. The formal presentation of and opposition to a stated proposition (usually followed by a vote)).

AWGate's function and purpose is to farmiliarize new users with the Active Worlds software, nothing more. The efficiency of this process would be greatly hampered were such debates allowed in AWGate. The resulting confusion would be madness for new users to sort through.

[View Quote]

Mar 18, 2003, 2:11am

This is a classic example of a very complicated solution to a surprisingly simple problem. As a matter of fact, the solution is so simple that even the politically inept AWI had the wisdom to enact it:

Don't allow controversial debate in AWGate at all, and the potential difficulties that would ensue are avoided entirely!

And, as the King has already pointed out, there are already designated places in AW to facilitate debate without having to go to the effort of making such drastic modifications to an already functional AWGate. If it isn't broken, then by all means, please don't do so by 'fixing' it :P

[View Quote]

Mar 18, 2003, 2:41am

Keep on topic!

Chris

[View Quote]

Mar 18, 2003, 2:44am

I agree with you. But that "conflict" also wasn't a flame war. It was a
good example of how to have a civil debate (most of the time :P) in these
newsgroups. Nowhere do you see people tossing insults back and forth. I
think I have to point this out because there seem to be several around who
think that any debate that extends beyond 20 replies is automatically a
flame war.

Chris

[View Quote]

Mar 18, 2003, 2:59am

Thank you!

(I will be petitioning AWI for an American Debate forum since we all seem to
want to bash the US president :)

[View Quote]

Mar 18, 2003, 3:03am

Someone told me in AW that there was going to be a lot of flames off of my
initial post...that hasn't been the case as far as I can see.

I'm not sure when, but a few weeks ago there were a lot of flames going
about...I for one don't want to get involved in that kind of discussion.

[View Quote]

Mar 18, 2003, 3:07am

Being under censorship isn't "positive" or in any way "productive" in my
opinion. I mean, a tourist asked one simple question about Iraq and got
jumped at. There really was no debate or any of that involved. Seriously, do
you think that is a positive and welcoming environment?

[View Quote]

Mar 18, 2003, 4:36am

Sorry. Not that I know why I should stay on topic, if i do not feel so and
I am just learning that one do not need to follow rules if one do not wish
to :)

Drac

Mar 18, 2003, 4:56am

You know what? If you want to vent your spleen on what should be the object
of your hate, get out a paper and pen and write to the president and major
leaders of the US. I did it, I wasn't pleasant, (it was only related to the
war, I still love my country) and guess what? They still haven't arrested
me. I'm sure they didn't say, "Oh oh, CarolAnn says no to war, lets call it
off!" but I still added my feelings to those of millions of others. I guess
we can do that here. Do you think it won't do any good or won't make you
feel as good? What good is saying the same thing over and over and over
again in here? By now, there isn't an AW newsgroup reader who doesn't know
that you hate Americans, America or at least everything American no matter
what they do, think or say. It has to be directed at us because I'm sure
Bush doesn't read these posts. If that isn't true, then why keep saying the
same thing over and over again? Say it once, say it twice, even say it 3
times but not every other post in every topic. If it changed things globally
I'd back you up-but it hasn't. Even in the USA we don't directly make those
decisions. Do you know of a country that allows individuals to call a halt
to these kind of actions because they learned it was wrong by reading a
bunch of internet news group postings? Your point has been made and hasn't
done a thing but insult a lot of people with many different view points,
maybe even some in agreement with your war views, but probably not your
limited views on the US in general. You apparently know more than our
government, our news services, (the ones that many heads of state (etc etc
etc) from around the world have no problems speaking with, stupid morons I
guess), and you apparently know more and are wiser than 285,000,000 American
citizens. Why waste your time trying to teach the naive and evil masses? Go
right to the source and leave us to our wicked ways.

[View Quote]

1  2  3  4  |   Order by index