1  2  |   Order by index

May 24, 1998, 1:32pm

This is an urgent matter, which i would like COF (Roland) to to think it
is important enough to address within their next version , .. it's a
very important addition.

To quote Leftover
"I think ejection message should show name of "Ejecter" and reason. If
you were using IRC, you understand it. Something like this:
"You have been ejected by Pee Wee Hermit. Reason: (you are silly)"

I think it could prevent misunderstanding and some "no reason"
ejections.

Leftover :)"

This is the most resonable and best idea I have seen , of the
suggestions so far. There have been MANY problems with the eject
function this week. This way, the cowards cant hide, there can be NO
misunderstandings, and the whole thing is brought out into the open.

Its one thing to go looking through the AW log for an ejector, but, it
would be alot handy if this style of ejection notification would be able
to be put in place,. The function to ALSO put a comment on it, like as
in irc, is also a very good idea.

Judgeing the anti ejection sentiment COF is presently having, and the
many problems COF is having to deal with in regards to user ejecttions,
and abuse of GK/PK priviledges (we all know it's happening), this
feature is an absolute *must*. It is an extremely logical tihng to do,
and I am sure COF will take this suggestion onboard with *much*
seriousness, as it solves many of their present problems.

Please, make this a priority, for your sakes, aswell as the sake of the
Citizens, and those citizens who give their time as PK's and GK's.
BEcause, it is US that is getting a bad name for this, and slurs from
other citizens. I do believe that we (PK's and GK's) have done enough
for your company in our spare and free time, for you to address this
problem, because, WE are being harrassed, WE are being abused, and this
feature would go a LONG way, to cutting this harrassment that we take,
day in and day out, in tryin to help the community. It will also cut
down on the harrassment of yourselves, because people will see who is
doing the ejecting, and maybe realise that it's some nut PK that slipped
notice, and NOT possibly the big bad ogres that they believe COF to
always be.

please, i implore you to take this serious. If needs be, i will organise
a petition, to show that this feature is as important as i am making it
out to sound.

thankyou,

Facter.

May 24, 1998, 5:45pm

Good idea. This could also help some people to figure out what they need to
do (or avoid doing) in the future to prevent repeted ejections. If anyone
has a problem with giving the name of the person who did the ejecting,
perhaps an alternative would be to log the name and reason (in an eject log
on the server) but only show the person being ejected the reason, and not
the name.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

May 24, 1998, 9:36pm

I agree Facter,

If I boot I want people to know I did it, further if they don't know the
reason I will be happy to explain it to them...

3DMark


[View Quote]

May 24, 1998, 11:28pm

Absolutley. It's only fair to let someone know exactly why they were booted,
so they can correct their behavior.
Otherwise, ejecting is a waste of time.

[View Quote]

May 24, 1998, 11:58pm

I agree that the person that gets ejected doesn't neccesarily need to know *who*
did it, the reason why is the most important. If I was a GK/PK adding my nick to
such a message might have coursed me hesitate a little too often before using
the eject function. Especially if you need to eject a "respected" user, or even
someone you know, it would be easier to do it if your nick is kept on some
record but not given to the user.

The person ejected should get to know what GK number that ejected her/him, for
future references if needed.

Bille

[View Quote] > Good idea. This could also help some people to figure out what they need to
> do (or avoid doing) in the future to prevent repeted ejections. If anyone
> has a problem with giving the name of the person who did the ejecting,
> perhaps an alternative would be to log the name and reason (in an eject log
> on the server) but only show the person being ejected the reason, and not
> the name.
>
> TechnoZeus
>
[View Quote]

--
Bille
-----oo-------------------------
Bille's World: http://home.sol.no/~bille/
Bille in AlphaWorld: Pink Village, 2222s 2222e 222

May 25, 1998, 12:12am

Well, i guess it'll never happen, I received a message back from Roland
stateing that he didnt want it [ejection] in the first place, and that I was
somehow demanding it be put in . . which I guess I was in a way (not how he
took it tho, he seemed to of taken it in much the wrong way), but I guess his
attitude of "I didnt want it in the first place, so Im not going to do
anything about it" is indicative of COF policy. . ..he seems to think that
people with eject priviledges are saints, and that it shouldnt happen. Which,
as we know from experience, just doesnt happen. (ie BadBoy, who went on an
ejection rampage at the gate, or our mysterious "mgib" ejector from AWGZ).

to quote his letter "Isn't the real problem that people
are being ejected without warning and without explanation? Why does the
software have to solve this problem? "
Why does the software have to solve the problem ? Because, regardless of
whether *you* wanted it in there in the first palce, it's THERE, and you
should take responbsibility for what you put into the damn software. It's
sorta like saying " well hay, I created a tank, why should I worry about what
it does ?" The fact of the matter is, is that ejectee's ARNT being warned or
anything like that, if it was to be implemented in the software, then the
ejector would be forced to give away a) his identity B0 his reason and
warning, instead of being a god damn coward and sitting back anonymously
ejecting people. Another sign that in this day and age, chivilry is as dead
as a peice of roadkill roo.

another quote "Why aren't the people who are
doing the ejecting warning the individuals first that their behavior will
get them ejected? "

I dont know. you tell ME. It's happening tho, and, when I give logical a
suggestion to fix the problem, i I get berated for being some sort of
demanding fool. I dont know why peopel dont warn them, but I HAVE BEEN THERE
when someone has continuously been ejected, WITHOUT WARNING, without him
doing ANYTHING except having the name MGIB as a tourist. You know who that
was ? It was RAZZLE who this person was ejecting, he had come in with the
tourist name of "mgib" and promptly got ejected. you know, Razzle, the person
in CHARGE of the PK's ? . So, in answer to THAT question, why doesnt someone
tell em the answer ?? If something is happening to harm a community, you
dont sit there saying "well, i guess it's up to the individual to decide
whether he wants to go out an blow people away". You put in *laws* and, in
this case, the law can only be implemented with the *SOFTWARE*. This problem
was created by the software, and it must be solved BY the software.

Either that, or take the god damn function OUT if you cant handle the
consequences.

shame really, I guess this is the last time I ever bother giving them a
solution to a problem that THEY created.

Im tired of giving a shit about this community, if thats the way my
suggestions are taken, well, then I just couldnt give two craps anymore. I
offer a reasonable suggestion, and once again, it is decided that the
citizens know nothing about it at all. We dont have any idea about whats
going on, and even tho we give up our SPARE TIME, and get HARRASSED and told
that we are puppets of COF, and that we are doing this shit for personal
glory, when we simply offer a suggestion on ways to *protect* ourselves and
to maybe be given back a little for everything we do for them, we get the
little flick of the finger.

Even if my idea wasnt all that much liked, at least a "good idea Fac, we will
work on it if we have time" would of been nice.

But, i guess that just aint the way things are done in our "community"

Pfff, i've seen better communities of sandwich mould.

Fac.

[View Quote] > I agree Facter,
>
> If I boot I want people to know I did it, further if they don't know the
> reason I will be happy to explain it to them...
>
> 3DMark
>
[View Quote]

May 25, 1998, 12:21am

mmm... i disagree bille, hen jecting people, you have to stand by your own opinion.
Even if the person is a respected citizen, it is better to let them know who is
ejecting them jsut for that reason. Hiding behind anonymity is useless, i mean, I
cannot see hopw it would be okay to eject a less well known person usign your anme,
than it would be to eject a more well known person without your name. . ..Im not
attacking yourself personally, but, if Im ejecting someone, anyone, I'd like exactly
who im ejecting to know it was me.

ie, if i was to eject Catzy or such from the gate, I'd want her to know it was me
Catzy: you have been ejected from The Gate by Facter [ catzy ya silly twat, shuddup
] =)

etc etc. That way, the ejection can be what it is MEANT to be, a simple matter of
"timeout", with no real repercussion but for the person to chill out an maybe think
about what they were doing to GET ejected, NOT what it's being used for, which is a
form of *punishment*.

Punishment never solves anything, ever ever ever.

Fac.



[View Quote] > I agree that the person that gets ejected doesn't neccesarily need to know *who*
> did it, the reason why is the most important. If I was a GK/PK adding my nick to
> such a message might have coursed me hesitate a little too often before using
> the eject function. Especially if you need to eject a "respected" user, or even
> someone you know, it would be easier to do it if your nick is kept on some
> record but not given to the user.
>
> The person ejected should get to know what GK number that ejected her/him, for
> future references if needed.
>
> Bille
>
[View Quote]

May 25, 1998, 12:39am

Uh oh, Fac - another one! You're sure to become labelled as a whiner now!
:) Well, the rest of us will be here to welcome you, once the 'holy ones'
are done with you!

[View Quote]

May 25, 1998, 1:19am

hehehe. . .*humph*

Fac =)

[View Quote] > Uh oh, Fac - another one! You're sure to become labelled as a whiner now!
> :) Well, the rest of us will be here to welcome you, once the 'holy ones'
> are done with you!
>
[View Quote]

May 25, 1998, 1:34pm

Ohhhhhh *heavy breathing* ...Stop fac..you're turning me on..... ;-))))))
[View Quote]

May 25, 1998, 2:47pm

Tjaaa...:)) I was more thinking that the reason *why* a person is ejected should be
more imprtant than *who* did it. Anyway - if the ejected person feels that the treatment
was unfair, it should of course be possible for GK org to look up in some logg who that
was responsible for the ejection. But as I see it, the GK's should act as a group, which
means you really don't need to get to know the person's name. If the ejected person
wants to complain, the complaint should be handled by the GK's as a group, and not by
the single GK. I don't know their policy too well, but I'm sure they have some
instructions. And if they behave in a bad way, it's their instructions that should be
improved.

I'm not sure how many GK's are on duty at the same time, but I believe that if a GK is
there alone, I'd like to know that (s)he should never be inhabil. If her/his nick is
revealed there might apear situations where the GK - if (s)he is threated(?) choses
*not* to eject because (s)he is aware of any personal herrassments that might be the
result of it. And if the PK ejects *because it's cool to show them who is in charge of
ejecting* the the whole function seams meaningless to me.

Hehe... If you were ejected for a good reason, it should not be any important to you to
know who did it - unless you want a revenge...:)))

Bille

[View Quote] > mmm... i disagree bille, hen jecting people, you have to stand by your own opinion.
> Even if the person is a respected citizen, it is better to let them know who is
> ejecting them jsut for that reason. Hiding behind anonymity is useless, i mean, I
> cannot see hopw it would be okay to eject a less well known person usign your anme,
> than it would be to eject a more well known person without your name. . ..Im not
> attacking yourself personally, but, if Im ejecting someone, anyone, I'd like exactly
> who im ejecting to know it was me.
>
> ie, if i was to eject Catzy or such from the gate, I'd want her to know it was me
> Catzy: you have been ejected from The Gate by Facter [ catzy ya silly twat, shuddup
> ] =)
>
> etc etc. That way, the ejection can be what it is MEANT to be, a simple matter of
> "timeout", with no real repercussion but for the person to chill out an maybe think
> about what they were doing to GET ejected, NOT what it's being used for, which is a
> form of *punishment*.
>
> Punishment never solves anything, ever ever ever.
>
> Fac.
>
[View Quote]

--
Bille
-----oo-------------------------
Bille's World: http://home.sol.no/~bille/
Bille in AlphaWorld: Pink Village, 2222s 2222e 222

May 25, 1998, 3:05pm

[View Quote]

May 25, 1998, 7:46pm

Yep.. That's getting back to my original meaning. "Who" is not as
important as "why" and even if "who" was not told in the message given, it
could be told in a telegram, or added to the typed in reason by the person
doing the ejecting (or okayed for addition to the message with the click of
a checkbox). Fact is, there is nothing wrong with hesitating before
ejecting someone... it should be thought out carefully to start with, and as
facter pointed out, should be used productively rather than as a punishment.
I personally see nothing wrong with telling "who" and "why" in the message
every time, but I realize that opinions may differ, so I did offer a viable
alternative. The log file should be included either way so that if the
world owner (or caretaker) chooses to log ejections, they can... thereby
allowing them to make a more educated assessment of who should be allowed to
continue to have such power in their world, and who is abusing it, or not
using it as they would want it used in their world. For example, if a
world owner wants to encourage discussions of taboo subjects in thier world,
they would not likely aprove of someone repetedly ejecting people for making
political remarks or politely arguing a point about the rights of minorities
and how they "personally" feel that society has it all wrong. The log file
would be mainly for the world owner to review for their own information, but
could come in handy in the case of a dispute over someone playing favorites,
or something like that.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

May 25, 1998, 8:13pm

Perhaps that was his point. If he didn't want the feature in the first
place and so far it's caused nothing but complaints, and is not used wisely,
it may be best simply to remove the feature entirely. I don't know, and I
haven't spoken with him (or anyone at CoF) about it. Perhaps Roland was
having a bad day when he ran into this one... anyway, I think it was a good
idea, and chances are, Roland probably thinks so too... give him a while to
think about it. At least he didn't flame you publicly (that I know of) so I
have to commend him on that. We all have bad days, and we all have times
that it looks like the more we try to please people, the less good it seams
to do. As for the point about warning people, perhaps there may be a way to
facilitate a warning protocol of some type... for example, instead of always
seeing "Eject" as an option when you select a person, you could initially
see "Warn" which could be used to place a person on a sort of probation
where they are sent a warning message, and then if you select them again,
"Eject" would be available... along with "Warn" as another option. Once
warned, the "Eject" option would be available to all people with eject
rights until the probation period expired. This action would also be
logged, thereby allowing a world owner to see if a person was ejected
immediately after being warned... indicating that they were given no chance
to correct their behavior. Eject rights allow a person to act as judge
with no chance of a jury trial... adding a descriptive message and a log
feature could give the citizen (or tourist) a chance to learn, and the world
owner a chance to prevent unfair or misdirected treatment by the people they
trust not to abuse such power.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote] >took it tho, he seemed to of taken it in much the wrong way), but I guess
his
>attitude of "I didnt want it in the first place, so Im not going to do
>anything about it" is indicative of COF policy. .
>...>
>
>Either that, or take the god damn function OUT if you cant handle the
>consequences.
>
>shame really, I guess this is the last time I ever bother giving them a
>solution to a problem that THEY created.
>...>

May 25, 1998, 10:28pm

LOL . ..nice one carre =)) hehehehe. . .

Fac.

[View Quote] [View Quote]

May 26, 1998, 11:09pm

having booted more ppl that I care to count, almost every one of them, if not
all, knew why. I always say why before, and hope it never comes to a boot.

to have me also say why they have left, before the eject takes effect, only
adds to the time they have on the world, to cause problems.

world owners should not have to give a reason for an eject, if they have given
this power to others, they might ask them to justify to the owners why someone
was ejected. if someone was ejected, and they dont know why, then they can ask
why, when they are able to return.
as far as I can see, this is a stupid idea. if anything, they should fix the
eject, so that when I say that someone should leave for 5 minutes, that they
cant get back in under 2 minutes!!!

m0e


[View Quote] > Absolutley. It's only fair to let someone know exactly why they were booted,
> so they can correct their behavior.
> Otherwise, ejecting is a waste of time.
>
[View Quote]

May 27, 1998, 10:13pm

pppffftt, how unusual for that post to of been deleted.

pah.

Fac.

May 29, 1998, 9:04am

No comment, apart from the fact.. we could compare AW to some of the better
IRC servers.

The moderators are there to help, they're trusted... and if someone is
booted... They are named
in the logs as doing the eject, and the user is notified to that end, too.

Snowy

--

Snow Dragon
snowdragon at geocities.com 67% Pure Dragon
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Lair/7755/

May 29, 1998, 10:39pm

Actually, it would be possible to have the ejection take place as soonas
requested, and a dialog box com up immediately after asking for a reason, to
give an opportunity (and reminder) to inform the person of why they had been
ejected from that world. That would make it a bit easier than to send them
a telegram, but without causing a delay that may allow them to continue
whatever they were doing at the time that the person ejecting them was
trying to stop. This would of course leave open the option to not type
anything in for a reason, but it would then be up to the world owner to
decide weather or not they would require a good reason to be entered each
time someone is ejected in their world.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

May 31, 1998, 3:17am

Speaking of ejections, I was ejected upon landing at AW GZ earlier
tonight.

Anyone care to fess up?

I didn't even have a chance to speak. Land - Eject - Boom.

[View Quote]

May 31, 1998, 4:53am

There's no excuse for that happening and I hope someone is going to QUICKLY
identify the person who ejected you Xav!!! Enough, is enough is
enough......
(

May 31, 1998, 10:09am

Xav, that sucks. Just like all this police business sucks, period. Just
like all the ejections without reason and for no good reason sucks. Just
like the constant online green checkmark sucks. Just like I'm certain
this post will be deleted immediately sucks. I love AW, guess I've said
it a thousand times but I deplore the policing and the lack of privacy
now. Perhaps if we had a means of disabling the online checkmark we'd
all build more and spend less time in the GZ areas. Might just reduce
the assinine ejections.

In article <3570E7E5.1120 at unforgettable.com>, xavarella at unforgettable.com
says...
> Speaking of ejections, I was ejected upon landing at AW GZ earlier
> tonight.
>
> Anyone care to fess up?
>
> I didn't even have a chance to speak. Land - Eject - Boom.
>

Jun 7, 1998, 9:43pm

I hate to be rude, so please ONLY take this in context, but to make it as
fukin' clear as I possibly can, I would like to say that you just can't
imagine the kind if schit some doinks will go through just to get in a few
funking swear words, and it don't really matter weather or not it help to
get their point across, or what the hëll they're trying to say since it's
how the fück they say it that makes the difference... if you know what I
mean. Even so, all things considered, I still think it's a pretty fukcing
good idea. :·)
Actually, the idea of a text highlighter has been brought up before, to
watch for important words, so if that was implimented, it should be no
fuucking problem to add this idea as a part of the other.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Jun 9, 1998, 5:14am

Actually, it's already cross-posted to wishlist, and awcommunity. Yes
Icey, you're right... I used a very small selection of words compared to
what's out there. My point was that it would be possible, and in fact not
even difficult, to get around the filter... however, as Marvin pointed out,
people wouldn't know weather or not you were filtering the spelling they
were using unless you told them, so if you just ignored them it would
probably not give them much satisfaction. My other point was that
filtering words requires that they first be recognized, and adding the
ability of AW to recognize words or text strings would be usefull for more
than JUST to filter out swear words.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Jun 11, 1998, 11:04pm

I got a real simple solution to the whole thing. And the Browser is the
key! All we need is a file that is used to list any text string we do
not want to view in our personal copy of the Browser. Sort of the
reverse of the new user defined "message" file. When the browser sees
the listed character string ( on a sign, an AVs name, in the chat
stream, embedded within a stream... etc.) it could replace it with other
characters! So simple! For example, if you had "Shit" on the list and
anyone chatted it within your browsers range the browser could find it
on the list file and replace it with " at !*$" or maybe "!!!!" or whatever!
Maybe even have another word the user could define in the file for the
substitute! For example "Shit=#2". Then when someone chats "Eat Shit"
you get "Eat #2". The vulgarity is not diminished for the sender, and
they look stupid to those that are listening. Have the Browser install a
default "alias.txt" file for all the words that COF thinks or offensive.
Delete the file, delete a line from the file, to get back to the real
nasty free AW!

What do you think people? Should we put Roland to work on this one for
Beta build 259?

Or is there some idiot that thinks there is something politically
incorrect with this idea too!

Jun 11, 1998, 11:32pm

I must say I like it. I have seen that before in other chat rooms. That
way it is good for the people who find it necessary to cuss and the people
who don't want to hear it.
Giggles

Jun 12, 1998, 11:43pm

[View Quote] Thank you TechnoZeus! After reading a number of your post in this NG I
will take that as a thumbs up...

:)

zer0

Jun 13, 1998, 8:53am

Well Marvin I don't think it will be so easy unless doing that only for
English language, AW is an international enviroment and for example bad
words in my language (Italian) are very very complex and quite impossible to
be codified. Anyway it's a good idea and it could be a good start as the
average AW population speaks English ( I think ...)
icey:-)

[View Quote] > I got a real simple solution to the whole thing. And the Browser is the
> key! All we need is a file that is used to list any text string we do
> not want to view in our personal copy of the Browser. Sort of the
> reverse of the new user defined "message" file. When the browser sees
> the listed character string ( on a sign, an AVs name, in the chat
> stream, embedded within a stream... etc.) it could replace it with other
> characters! So simple! For example, if you had "Shit" on the list and
> anyone chatted it within your browsers range the browser could find it
> on the list file and replace it with " at !*$" or maybe "!!!!" or whatever!
> Maybe even have another word the user could define in the file for the
> substitute! For example "Shit=#2". Then when someone chats "Eat Shit"
> you get "Eat #2". The vulgarity is not diminished for the sender, and
> they look stupid to those that are listening. Have the Browser install a
> default "alias.txt" file for all the words that COF thinks or offensive.
> Delete the file, delete a line from the file, to get back to the real
> nasty free AW!
>
> What do you think people? Should we put Roland to work on this one for
> Beta build 259?
>
> Or is there some idiot that thinks there is something politically
> incorrect with this idea too!

Jun 13, 1998, 9:01am

Well , if they are the only two most pop bad words you can manage ...I think
that it wouldn't be a big deal finding all the "similars"..the prob is there
are languages with thousans bad words or millions bad phrases...so what do you
do ..
icey:-)


[View Quote] > I hate to be rude, so please ONLY take this in context, but to make it as
> fukin' clear as I possibly can, I would like to say that you just can't
> imagine the kind if schit some doinks will go through just to get in a few
> funking swear words, and it don't really matter weather or not it help to
> get their point across, or what the hëll they're trying to say since it's
> how the fück they say it that makes the difference... if you know what I
> mean. Even so, all things considered, I still think it's a pretty fukcing
> good idea. :·)
> Actually, the idea of a text highlighter has been brought up before, to
> watch for important words, so if that was implimented, it should be no
> fuucking problem to add this idea as a part of the other.
>
> TechnoZeus
>
[View Quote]

Jun 13, 1998, 1:51pm

Well, there are other positive side effects if this was implemented...
one being the people that curse all the time would never be able to tell
if the words they were using were filtered or not by the persons Browser
they were talking to. Especially if the person they were talking to only
responded with normal responses... like they did not notice anything out
of the norm. It would take some of the fire out of the abuser....

You just brought up another advantage to the method I described. It
could be used to monitor/substitute for ANY character string of
printable characters. Meaning any language. It would serve most peoples
needs even if it was a very short list of words. It would make the
abuser work much harder to get their jollies.

It could also be designed to handle a set of characters that were
embedded in a string of characters (harder on resources). It would be
easy to make it where it did not care about mixed case (that is the easy
way!). It could even be designed to watch a complete string of chat
(character string anyway) and truncate or dump the string if it found
any part of it that matched the strings it was watching for...

Lots of ways to go here to get the most out of it....

Later

zer0


[View Quote]

1  2  |   Order by index