1  |   Order by index

Nov 22, 1998, 9:59pm

I ain't pickin' on nobody. All I say is you shouldn't bring up silly
arguments like citizen numbers and how long you've been in AW.

You talk like the one who has most experience is always right.
Don't you think that's nonsense? If we go judging like that we'd better stop
all discussion and trade citizen numbers instead.

Klassi's argument sounded a lot better to me, which was that till now they
haven't done a thing of what they said they'd do. That's a better reason not
to believe that custom avatars will be possible.
You didn't bring any argument *why* you didn't believe it would happen. So
for me it was better to believe the programmer, than believe a citizen who
says he's right because his citz# is higher....

And like citz# don't matter, age doesn't matter at all to determine who's
right.
Just don't bring up silly arguments if you want people to believe you.
No argument is better than a silly argument, because a silly argument lowers
your reputation

Cubic || Kiss the
ICQ -- 18557607 || devil and
cubic at mediaport.org || piss off
http://welcome.to/cubic || the saint.
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh <jrrodgers at usa.net>
Newsgroups: wishlist
To: Cubic <hans_bomers at club.tip.nl>
Date: maandag 23 november 1998 0:00
Subject: Re: Custom avs are here! - yippee!


I don't know it all so maybe you should shutup, and maybe you SHOULD
sotp
picking on a 14 year old and go get a life and play with your people
your own
age sparky...

[View Quote] > Is THAT the best argument you can come up with? :-(
> Like that proves anything at all...
> You sound like a little child!
>
> Besides; i agree with Klassi;
> If Roland says custom avatars going to happen, what reason heave you
*not*
> to believe that? Well??
> Maybe Roland doesn't have the final decission.
> But if he says yes and you say no; I'd believe HIM.
> Like *you* know it all.
>
[View Quote]

Nov 23, 1998, 2:52pm

Yep. Like I prefer a good only-8-years-matured-Scotch than a
poor-15-years-old-one.
Time is one thing. Speed of learning another. It's called cinetics. What I like
in here, unless you are square enough so one of your very first questions is
"how old?", is you have to make up your mind on what people say apart from the
age you aren't supposed to know. And I can tell you there are very often big
surprises.
I kinda like what says cubic, and though I'm among the oldies (virtually and
really). I'm not sure I was that wise at 14. Of course I don't agree on all. I
do agree too you can't totally ignore experience. I guess Cubic's reaction is
more about rigid position as opposed to rigid position of those who pretent to
know the truth because of the past.. Kinda trying to balance things from one
excess with another, but who is really guilty? See discussion about PKs' age
limit. When adults reason as dumbs, they shouldn't be surprised to be called
dumb. Even if it offends their adult self-satisfaction.
The thing is experience (in this case how long have you been in AW) can't be
ignored. We all progress from learning from the past, including Cubic. But what
Cubic means, as far as I understand, is this doesn't give you (us, me) the right
to say you know the truth because of that while he (she?) doesn't. But it still
was and happened, so you can't ignore it. The interpretation maybe wrong but the
experience is still there. Ignoring it, is pretending we have to learn
everything again. Kinda Penelope's work. The plan of the tapestry may be nice
but you never see it.


[View Quote] > Experience? A 14-year old? :)
>
> --
>
> Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik
> ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft
> fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com
>
> Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware has
> limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines are so
> poor at I/O.
>
[View Quote]

Nov 23, 1998, 6:27pm

Dont acte. 17 or 14, alas I'm now not sure to make the whole difference. It
doesn't change anything in my arguing, I think. Now don't take it as too
personal. I could see in other posts you are able to be sensible. Just this
"age=so" argument, full point, sounded to me a bit limited. But I understand
there are moment we don't feel like arguing. That's the drawback of age.:)

[View Quote] > Just for the record... i wasn't talking about cubic... he's 17. I was
> talking about josh.
>
> --
>
> Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik
> ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft
> fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com
>
> Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware has
> limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines are so
> poor at I/O.
>
[View Quote]

Nov 23, 1998, 7:18pm

This thread seems to have lost it's way..Is there a Psychologist in AW?...

Klassi

[View Quote] > Dont acte. 17 or 14, alas I'm now not sure to make the whole difference. It
> doesn't change anything in my arguing, I think. Now don't take it as too
> personal. I could see in other posts you are able to be sensible. Just this
> "age=so" argument, full point, sounded to me a bit limited. But I understand
> there are moment we don't feel like arguing. That's the drawback of age.:)
>
[View Quote]

Nov 23, 1998, 8:05pm

That argument was indeed a bit limited (of *Josh* ;-) )
Anyway, I don't seem to be getting *your* point really...


[View Quote]

Nov 23, 1998, 8:56pm

Heres an idea, lets take this to e-maila nd flame each other for no damn reason
eh? You people sit there and jump all over me because I was only making a point
eh?

[View Quote] > That argument was indeed a bit limited (of *Josh* ;-) )
> Anyway, I don't seem to be getting *your* point really...
>
[View Quote]

Nov 23, 1998, 9:56pm

I think you missed it Josh. All are just trying to make their point, and I didn't
see anyone jumping all over you. But if you insist on taking this to email, please
include me too. This ng has gotten a bit dreary of late. :)
BTW...you're from Canada, eh? <=== not a flame...just good natured teasing. :)

[View Quote] > Heres an idea, lets take this to e-mail and flame each other for no damn reason
> eh? You people sit there and jump all over me because I was only making a point
> eh?

Nov 23, 1998, 11:10pm

Experience? A 14-year old? :)

--

Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik
ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft
fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com

Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware has
limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines are so
poor at I/O.

[View Quote]

Nov 24, 1998, 3:04am

Just for the record... i wasn't talking about cubic... he's 17. I was
talking about josh.

--

Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik
ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft
fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com

Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware has
limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines are so
poor at I/O.

[View Quote]

Nov 24, 1998, 2:15pm

That is the whole meaning of the thread:
You *weren't* making a point at all! You only side what you heard was not
true..
And if I say you're unreasonable cuz you give bad arguments or none at all,
you see *I* am nagging!

I haven't been flaming btw.
You started telling *me* to shut up!
In contrast: all *I* said is why do you say that what Klassi said was *not*
true, if you don't have good reasons to believe that.
And if you *do* have good reasons: why didn't you tell them to us?
Else, how could we ever believe *you* ?
Denying is so easy....

So don't say *I* am flaming and don't say *I* am being unreasonable.
If somebody says something I believe him untill i have *reasons* not to. You
didn't bring any of these reasons so there was no reason to agree with you.


[View Quote]

Nov 25, 1998, 9:16pm

I don't need one myself!...

[View Quote] > Yep. Me. Heheh... Still interested? :)
>
> --
>
> Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik
> ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft
> fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com
>
> Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware has
> limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines are so
> poor at I/O.
>
[View Quote]

Nov 26, 1998, 1:35am

Yep. Me. Heheh... Still interested? :)

--

Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik
ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft
fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com

Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware has
limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines are so
poor at I/O.

[View Quote]

Nov 26, 1998, 1:37am

Nah... e-mail isn't that nice... ngs are fun to have flame threads in
because there's always a lot of protest... :)

--

Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik
ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft
fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com

Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware has
limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines are so
poor at I/O.

[View Quote]

Nov 26, 1998, 4:15am

Ok I have been reading this thread for the last couple days, its pretty
funny but let me try and get it a little bit more on track......

Custom avs? I believe they ARE coming. And about Josh's first comment
about them perhaps not being implemented because they could lead to obscene
nature and material in AW...That could and probably will happen, (obscene
avs) but you need to remember that AW DOES have that kind of material all
over it. If you notice some of the signs by Ground Zero they basically
state that viewer discretion is advised.

And here is a brief summary of the way custom avs MIGHT work according to
Roland:

1, they will be located on the users personal web server

2, they will go through an auto screening process by AW browser when they
download to insure that they meet specific guidelines, E.G., file size,
Geometry size, and vert/polygon count.

3, they WILL be aloud in ALL worlds, because what is custom avs if they work
in some worlds but not others? And I believe this would be hurting the
worlds that disallow them anyay, I mean would users want to stay in a world
where they could not wear what they want? So it is going to be a setting
that is in the UNIVERSE box, not the world.

Alright thats about it, catcha later. And stop squabbling. Buh bye then

-raiven-

Nov 26, 1998, 6:06am

[View Quote] > Ok I have been reading this thread for the last couple days, its pretty
> funny but let me try and get it a little bit more on track......
>
> Custom avs? I believe they ARE coming. And about Josh's first comment
> about them perhaps not being implemented because they could lead to obscene
> nature and material in AW...That could and probably will happen, (obscene
> avs) but you need to remember that AW DOES have that kind of material all
> over it. If you notice some of the signs by Ground Zero they basically
> state that viewer discretion is advised.
>
> And here is a brief summary of the way custom avs MIGHT work according to
> Roland:
>
> 1, they will be located on the users personal web server
>
> 2, they will go through an auto screening process by AW browser when they
> download to insure that they meet specific guidelines, E.G., file size,
> Geometry size, and vert/polygon count.
>
> 3, they WILL be aloud in ALL worlds, because what is custom avs if they work
> in some worlds but not others? And I believe this would be hurting the
> worlds that disallow them anyay, I mean would users want to stay in a world
> where they could not wear what they want? So it is going to be a setting
> that is in the UNIVERSE box, not the world.
>
> Alright thats about it, catcha later. And stop squabbling. Buh bye then
>
> -raiven-

>

Is this true? What about those users who want to have a place where
they will
not have to be subject to obscenity, pornography and desecration of
their sacred
icons. Freedom of speech is one thing, but what about freedom of
decency???
Is it not a right, too???


What about those worlds that have a theme? Allowing ANY avatar in
that world
would totally destroy the effect. One such world, for example, is
Outland. I
think it is cool how each avatar has a role to play in the story. I
am
working on a world where the avatars complement the theme of the world.

Having custom avatars in ALL worlds will ruin months of hard work and
for
what? So some jerk can come in and assault the senses of the innocent
chatters
who just want to have a good time?

I believe in freedom, but even freedom has its limits. Your freedom
ends when
it crosses over my freedom. I paid for my world and I will not have
anybody
dictate what avatars will and will not be allowed in my world. I will
cancel
my account first. I might as well if I cannot have the freedom to do
with my
own property what I wish, within reason.

Nov 26, 1998, 7:50am

[View Quote] Lame argument Fluxen;

The real world works exactly the way Dean suggested. Show up under dressed
or over dressed just about anywhere in RL and you get censored. Show up in
Saudi Arabia wearing the wrong thing and you get arrested. Show up at the
beach in Rio (Brazil) wearing the wrong thing and you are viewed as a
tourist, idiot, or prude. What is wrong with the idea of wanting to
control the use (allow or disallow) of custom avatars in one's own world.

Because different worlds have different "ratings", it may be possible to
to tag an avatar with a rating as well. As long as the avatar's rating is
lower or equal to the world's rating, it is allowed to be used there (if
custom avatars are allowed in that world). The problem is that the rating
of the avatars must be voluntary.

Perhaps there needs to be a way to visually "mute" an offending avatar --
turn it into a "tourist" avatar.

ScottyDM

--
Please send all SPAMS, FLAMES, and CONSPIRACY THEORIES to
scottydm at cwia.com
Send all other IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE to scottydm at codenet.net
___
/////\\ Digitally Enhanced Portrait of:
{|-0-0-|} Scott D. Miller,
| % | Silicon Mercenary
\===/ Freelance Chip Designer

always #5 FOO = ~FOO; // the sound of a beating heart

Nov 26, 1998, 1:15pm

I think the 'owner' of the world should be able to determine whether custom
avatars are allowed in that specific world. If he decides not to allow it;
you'd be able to choose between the world's own avatars.
Ain't that better?

[View Quote]

Nov 26, 1998, 1:24pm

[View Quote] Nothing. I think FLuxen and you agree that there should be an option to turn
custom avatars on or off. I agree to.
But your conflict is: should this option be for the viewer or for the
world-owner?
I think the world-owner should be able to turn it on and off. If you make a
world that looks like space (like Rolu is planning) and you want avatars
like astronauts and aliens. Wouldn't it be horrible if somebody showed up in
a bikini ?!?!
If you start a world I think it's because you wanna make something that
looks cool. So you want the avatars to fit in. SO I think the world owner
should determine what avatars are available in his world.
So if you want your own avatars, I think you should start your own world :-)


>
>Because different worlds have different "ratings", it may be possible to
>to tag an avatar with a rating as well. As long as the avatar's rating is
>lower or equal to the world's rating, it is allowed to be used there (if
>custom avatars are allowed in that world). The problem is that the rating
>of the avatars must be voluntary.
>
>Perhaps there needs to be a way to visually "mute" an offending avatar --
>turn it into a "tourist" avatar.
>
>ScottyDM
>
>--
>Please send all SPAMS, FLAMES, and CONSPIRACY THEORIES to
>scottydm at cwia.com
>Send all other IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE to scottydm at codenet.net
> ___
> /////\\ Digitally Enhanced Portrait of:
> {|-0-0-|} Scott D. Miller,
> | % | Silicon Mercenary
> \===/ Freelance Chip Designer
>
>always #5 FOO = ~FOO; // the sound of a beating heart

Nov 26, 1998, 2:13pm

I shouldn't enter this universe??? So, someone's "free speech" supercedes my
freedom to enter the universe and not be visually assaulted or own a world and
keep the theme consistent???? How arrogant!

Why is it always the ones who desire a place to be decent who are always looked
upon unfavorably. Why does the pervert always get looked upon as the
victim? Why do people jump all over someone in a newsgroup for calling a
friend a "snatch," while at the same time defending the right to call someone a
"snatch" in chat? I think it is just as hypocritical as they accuse us
Christians of being.

Although I am appalled at it when it happens, and have compassion for the victim
of the attack, I see it as another hypocrisy. It seems that such attacks
are protected by the free speech advocates as long as it happens to an unknown,
not themselves or someone they care about.

Besides, why is it always freedom to commit indecency that is the great "freedom
of speech" campaign? What about my freedom? What about the freedom of
those who frequent my world? Who stands up for their freedom?

If you think I am a prude, I am not easily offended, but I do have others to
think about and I do wish to protect the theme of my world. And I am sick of
seeing "freedom of speech" being used to protect juveniles with loose tongues,
perverts and malicious hacks.

[View Quote] > Your freedom seems to be some christian freedom. If you feel you need to be
> free of obscenity, you just shouldn't enter this universe. Maybe it's an
> idea to add an option to the browsers that will give the viewers control
> over whether or not custom avatars are displayed as such.
>
> --
>
> Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik
> ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft
> fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com
>
> Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware has
> limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines are so
> poor at I/O.
>
[View Quote]

Nov 26, 1998, 2:35pm

For a good indication of ways to limit "problem avatars", we might take a look
at other universes where custom avatars are legal and normal. During the year i was
in WC, I only ever saw 2 avatars that would fit into the "censorable" category, and
the guy who made them had enough discretion. But perhaps that's too isolated an
example... A better example might be Palace, where a user has the ability to easily
import any graphic in as their avatar. And yes, there are problems with people
using obscene avatars. But they are quickly ejected.
Both Palace and WC have limits on their avatars as well. Palace, for instance,
limits users to 9 44x44 pixel panels to keep the size and d/l reasonable. WC also
inherently has size limits on avatars- AW would almost certainly have to do the
same. Even if it were something as simple as imposing a 3m height limit
(configurable in world.ini), and scaling all avatars over 3m in any dimension down
to 3m. Or downright reject any avatar over, say, 2000 verts (configurable) But
these worlds would all require a person with ejection rights to enforce other
censorship policies. Sure, you get the kind in Palace who run around wearing XXX
pics, but not as many as you may think... I actually can't think of any offhand.
Another ban idea might be to ban avatars from certain URLs (ie, a user account's
address like http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/5728/)- kiddies might get used to logging
off and logging back on to bypass a ban, but it would get tiresome to keep creating
new xoom accounts to keep moving their avatars to.
But best of all, tourists would not be a problem. So right there we eliminate
95% of the problem people by the simple requirement that they cough up $20 :-)

grover

[View Quote] > I shouldn't enter this universe??? So, someone's "free speech" supercedes my
> freedom to enter the universe and not be visually assaulted or own a world and
> keep the theme consistent???? How arrogant!
>
> Why is it always the ones who desire a place to be decent who are always looked
> upon unfavorably. Why does the pervert always get looked upon as the
> victim? Why do people jump all over someone in a newsgroup for calling a
> friend a "snatch," while at the same time defending the right to call someone a
> "snatch" in chat? I think it is just as hypocritical as they accuse us
> Christians of being.
>
> Although I am appalled at it when it happens, and have compassion for the victim
> of the attack, I see it as another hypocrisy. It seems that such attacks
> are protected by the free speech advocates as long as it happens to an unknown,
> not themselves or someone they care about.
>
> Besides, why is it always freedom to commit indecency that is the great "freedom
> of speech" campaign? What about my freedom? What about the freedom of
> those who frequent my world? Who stands up for their freedom?
>
> If you think I am a prude, I am not easily offended, but I do have others to
> think about and I do wish to protect the theme of my world. And I am sick of
> seeing "freedom of speech" being used to protect juveniles with loose tongues,
> perverts and malicious hacks.
>
[View Quote]

Nov 26, 1998, 3:44pm

Your freedom seems to be some christian freedom. If you feel you need to be
free of obscenity, you just shouldn't enter this universe. Maybe it's an
idea to add an option to the browsers that will give the viewers control
over whether or not custom avatars are displayed as such.

--

Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik
ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft
fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com

Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware has
limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines are so
poor at I/O.


[View Quote] [snipping orimsg raiven]

>Is this true? What about those users who want to have a place where
>they will
>not have to be subject to obscenity, pornography and desecration of
>their sacred
>icons. Freedom of speech is one thing, but what about freedom of
>decency???
>Is it not a right, too???
>
>
>What about those worlds that have a theme? Allowing ANY avatar in
>that world
>would totally destroy the effect. One such world, for example, is
>Outland. I
>think it is cool how each avatar has a role to play in the story. I
>am
>working on a world where the avatars complement the theme of the world.
>
>Having custom avatars in ALL worlds will ruin months of hard work and
>for
>what? So some jerk can come in and assault the senses of the innocent
>chatters
>who just want to have a good time?
>
>I believe in freedom, but even freedom has its limits. Your freedom
>ends when
>it crosses over my freedom. I paid for my world and I will not have
>anybody
>dictate what avatars will and will not be allowed in my world. I will
>cancel
>my account first. I might as well if I cannot have the freedom to do
>with my
>own property what I wish, within reason.

Nov 26, 1998, 7:42pm

Not bad as guesses....

One point most seem to forget is that Custom Avatars will be available to
REGISTERED citizens, if they abuse and misuse them under the COF terms of
contract their registration can be terminated.. So yes they can do what they
like but will cease to exist if they do!...

Klassi

[View Quote] > Ok I have been reading this thread for the last couple days, its pretty
> funny but let me try and get it a little bit more on track......
>
> Custom avs? I believe they ARE coming. And about Josh's first comment
> about them perhaps not being implemented because they could lead to obscene
> nature and material in AW...That could and probably will happen, (obscene
> avs) but you need to remember that AW DOES have that kind of material all
> over it. If you notice some of the signs by Ground Zero they basically
> state that viewer discretion is advised.
>
> And here is a brief summary of the way custom avs MIGHT work according to
> Roland:
>
> 1, they will be located on the users personal web server
>
> 2, they will go through an auto screening process by AW browser when they
> download to insure that they meet specific guidelines, E.G., file size,
> Geometry size, and vert/polygon count.
>
> 3, they WILL be aloud in ALL worlds, because what is custom avs if they work
> in some worlds but not others? And I believe this would be hurting the
> worlds that disallow them anyay, I mean would users want to stay in a world
> where they could not wear what they want? So it is going to be a setting
> that is in the UNIVERSE box, not the world.
>
> Alright thats about it, catcha later. And stop squabbling. Buh bye then
>
> -raiven-

Nov 26, 1998, 7:46pm

Free from Obscenity... Fat lot of chance if you live on this planet...

[View Quote] > Your freedom seems to be some christian freedom. If you feel you need to be
> free of obscenity, you just shouldn't enter this universe. Maybe it's an
> idea to add an option to the browsers that will give the viewers control
> over whether or not custom avatars are displayed as such.
>
> --
>
> Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik
> ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft
> fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com
>
> Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware has
> limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines are so
> poor at I/O.
>
[View Quote]

Nov 26, 1998, 7:51pm

Hiya Scott,

Very interesting points.. Just shows how a graphical representation can totally
change the whole of the AW Community, no wonder COF hasn't implemented it. (yet)

Klassi
[View Quote] > Lame argument Fluxen;
>
> The real world works exactly the way Dean suggested. Show up under dressed
> or over dressed just about anywhere in RL and you get censored. Show up in
> Saudi Arabia wearing the wrong thing and you get arrested. Show up at the
> beach in Rio (Brazil) wearing the wrong thing and you are viewed as a
> tourist, idiot, or prude. What is wrong with the idea of wanting to
> control the use (allow or disallow) of custom avatars in one's own world.
>
> Because different worlds have different "ratings", it may be possible to
> to tag an avatar with a rating as well. As long as the avatar's rating is
> lower or equal to the world's rating, it is allowed to be used there (if
> custom avatars are allowed in that world). The problem is that the rating
> of the avatars must be voluntary.
>
> Perhaps there needs to be a way to visually "mute" an offending avatar --
> turn it into a "tourist" avatar.
>
> ScottyDM
>
> --
> Please send all SPAMS, FLAMES, and CONSPIRACY THEORIES to
> scottydm at cwia.com
> Send all other IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE to scottydm at codenet.net
> ___
> /////\\ Digitally Enhanced Portrait of:
> {|-0-0-|} Scott D. Miller,
> | % | Silicon Mercenary
> \===/ Freelance Chip Designer
>
> always #5 FOO = ~FOO; // the sound of a beating heart

Nov 26, 1998, 9:44pm

[View Quote] >The real world works exactly the way Dean suggested. Show up under dressed
>or over dressed just about anywhere in RL and you get censored. Show up in
>Saudi Arabia wearing the wrong thing and you get arrested. Show up at the
>beach in Rio (Brazil) wearing the wrong thing and you are viewed as a
>tourist, idiot, or prude.

Yeah. But does that mean that these 'real' things, that I don't like, should
also exist in VL? Do we have to incorporate them? Do we have to restrict
people? Should there be 'discrimination' against people? Why limit people in
their freedom? I think that the cons of RL should not be implemented in VL.

>What is wrong with the idea of wanting to
>control the use (allow or disallow) of custom avatars in one's own world.


No. There's nothing wrong with it. It would be best. However, it's not the
way the custom avatars will be implemented...

>Because different worlds have different "ratings", it may be possible to
>to tag an avatar with a rating as well. As long as the avatar's rating is
>lower or equal to the world's rating, it is allowed to be used there (if
>custom avatars are allowed in that world). The problem is that the rating
>of the avatars must be voluntary.

Eh... ratings for *custom* avatars?? Doesn't look very useful. If one uses
an avatar s/he knows to be possibly offending... would s/he then accept to
be rated? Not many, at least...

>Perhaps there needs to be a way to visually "mute" an offending avatar --
>turn it into a "tourist" avatar.

Sounds good. The viewer able to mute specific avs according to their own
ideas.

--

Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik
ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft
fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com

Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware has
limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines are so
poor at I/O.

Nov 27, 1998, 1:36am

[View Quote] Wait a sec cubic. There isn't a conflict about that. I *do* think the choice
of allowing custom avatars should be for the world-owner, not decided for
the entire universe. However, Roland said it will be universe-based, not
world-based. Hence it is trivial to consider this thought.
Question then is: should the viewer be given the possibility of disabling
the viewing of custom avatars, be it for all custavs, or for each custav
individually? Personally I think the viewer should have such an option, as I
said in another post (on wl and/or awc).

>I think the world-owner should be able to turn it on and off. If you make a
>world that looks like space (like Rolu is planning) and you want avatars
>like astronauts and aliens. Wouldn't it be horrible if somebody showed up
in
>a bikini ?!?!

Rolu and I will probably buy a world next year and we haven't made any
definite decisions yet. He may well try it in a trial world, but that
doesn't mean anything.
Back to topic: yes, it wouldn't seem that appropriate. However, here again:
it seems to be definite: allowance of custavs is universe-based, not
world-based. Nothing you or I can do about that.

>If you start a world I think it's because you wanna make something that
>looks cool. So you want the avatars to fit in. SO I think the world owner
>should determine what avatars are available in his world.

I don't get the impression you ever read LittleCupid's postings lately, have
you, cubic?

--

Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik
ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft
fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com

Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware has
limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines are so
poor at I/Od.

Nov 27, 1998, 1:48am

[View Quote]
<sigh> What I mean, you fool, is that if you don't like the place, then piss
off. If you don't like gay bars (just an example), then don't go there. If
you don't like the situation in any place, you'd better not enter.

[Reply continues after this:]

>Why is it always the ones who desire a place to be decent who are always
looked
>upon unfavorably. Why does the pervert always get looked upon as the
>victim? Why do people jump all over someone in a newsgroup for calling a
>friend a "snatch," while at the same time defending the right to call
someone a
>"snatch" in chat? I think it is just as hypocritical as they accuse us
>Christians of being.

>Although I am appalled at it when it happens, and have compassion for the
victim
>of the attack, I see it as another hypocrisy. It seems that such
attacks
>are protected by the free speech advocates as long as it happens to an
unknown,
>not themselves or someone they care about.
>
>Besides, why is it always freedom to commit indecency that is the great
"freedom
>of speech" campaign? What about my freedom? What about the freedom of
>those who frequent my world? Who stands up for their freedom?
>
>If you think I am a prude, I am not easily offended, but I do have others
to
>think about and I do wish to protect the theme of my world. And I am
sick of
>seeing "freedom of speech" being used to protect juveniles with loose
tongues,
>perverts and malicious hacks.


*!?!* You need a psych man! You are making false generalizations and you are
overreacting. You're pathetic. I do *not* consider you to be in any way
pitiable. Gimme a break.

--

Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik
ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft
fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com

Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware has
limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines are so
poor at I/O.


[View Quote]

Nov 27, 1998, 5:40am

[View Quote] Because too much freedom is *usually* bad for the atmosphere.
Some people then forget to think about others too. Like the 'vulgaire'
avatars: Nics if you like it, but do others like it? Like Fluxen said in
some msgs:
"You're free to go anywhere. But then you have to adapt to the situation and
not the other way around."
I think you shouldn't just be able to do just anything you like...


> I think that the cons of RL should not be implemented in VL.
>
>
>No. There's nothing wrong with it. It would be best. However, it's not the
>way the custom avatars will be implemented...
>
>
>Eh... ratings for *custom* avatars?? Doesn't look very useful. If one uses
>an avatar s/he knows to be possibly offending... would s/he then accept to
>be rated? Not many, at least...
>
>
>Sounds good. The viewer able to mute specific avs according to their own
>ideas.

Nov 27, 1998, 5:53am

[View Quote] [View Quote] Good point. Amazing how some want to copy/paste RL in here, just because that's
how it is in RL. Without giving a thought on could it be different. Such an
imagination!
The problem is here we have at the same time ppl from these different places
with different rules and habits. That's the challenge. That's the purpose. If
you can't stand your neighbour wears the "wrong" thing in here, why coming? Stay
home.
So, let me guess which habits and values some want to enforce in here in name
of RL, saudi Arabian? Brazilian? Hmm... no, I think I have an idea.....

1  |   Order by index