1  |   Order by index

Feb 26, 1999, 7:12pm

1. A language filter, making AW kid-safe (The world ratings do nothing.)
2. Demolishing squads who have eminent property (for people who won't get
rid of clutter)
3. Animals. I saw some animated-sequence fish objects in A'tuin; why not
make bot animals? In AWGames they already have 2 or more bird bots. So, jsut
an idea.
4. Special bots that block certain citizen #'s or only let certain
citizen#'s into a zone. The creation of these bots is restricted to certain
people (or there would be blocker bots all over GZ's.)
5. "Hitbots." Some bots eject people or can; my proposal goes like this:
A. Some idiot continues to vandalize, trash-talk, and harass everyone in
your world.
B. You call in a Hitbot.
C. You tell it to eject the person "bob" and eject him for 1 week
(possible command: Hitbot3 eject "bob" 1 week)
D. HitBot relentlessly hunts "bob" down and continues to do so whenever
bob's online until he catches "bob."
E. HitBot only ejects "bob" from your world, not the world he's in.
F. If necessary, tell HitBot3: HitBot3 eject "bob" 1 week loop
G. This would activate endlessly, thus banishing "bob" from your world
until you tell HitBot3: HitBot3 stop eject "bob"
H. End this long idea
6. Special objects that mask everything in a 1-cell 10 meters up 10 meters
underground cube. ONly the creator of the object can see everything masked
by it, and you could put in actions "create mask off" to turn off the mask
(for visitors.) Good for hiding structures as a surprise or hiding
unsuitable material (NOTE: the demolition squad mentioned above can see
through the masks.)
7. Make bots that will follow certain avatars. EXAMPLE: bird bots that
follow bird avatars.
8. Auto-construction bots that appear on their own occasionally. They build
a specific template (for example: a bird bot building a tree and a nest
(pot), and other bots building things like huge monuments, houses or even
mountains. These constructions are treated like normal citizen
constructions, and since they don't chain-build worlds like AlphaWorld
should have no trouble with allowing them to generate.
9. I will post more ideas later.

Feb 26, 1999, 8:11pm

[View Quote] |-|Ö\/\/ w0ÙLÐ ¥Óù ... control the variations?



>2. Demolishing squads who have eminent property (for people who won't get
>rid of clutter)

They already have a garbageman and a trashman. A definition of clutter
would be nice, though



>4. Special bots that block certain citizen #'s or only let certain
>citizen#'s into a zone. The creation of these bots is restricted to certain
>people (or there would be blocker bots all over GZ's.)

Make a private world if you want to be so unfriendly.



>5. "Hitbots." Some bots eject people or can; my proposal goes like this:
> A. Some idiot continues to vandalize, trash-talk, and harass everyone
in
>your world.
> B. You call in a Hitbot.
> C. You tell it to eject the person "bob" and eject him for 1 week
>(possible command: Hitbot3 eject "bob" 1 week)
> D. HitBot relentlessly hunts "bob" down and continues to do so whenever
>bob's online until he catches "bob."
> E. HitBot only ejects "bob" from your world, not the world he's in.
> F. If necessary, tell HitBot3: HitBot3 eject "bob" 1 week loop
> G. This would activate endlessly, thus banishing "bob" from your world
>until you tell HitBot3: HitBot3 stop eject "bob"
> H. End this long idea

The Hit(ler)bots have already been perfected to an art, I think.



>6. Special objects that mask everything in a 1-cell 10 meters up 10 meters
>underground cube. ONly the creator of the object can see everything masked
>by it, and you could put in actions "create mask off" to turn off the mask
>(for visitors.) Good for hiding structures as a surprise or hiding
>unsuitable material (NOTE: the demolition squad mentioned above can see
>through the masks.)

Again, that's what private worlds are for.



>7. Make bots that will follow certain avatars. EXAMPLE: bird bots that
>follow bird avatars.

How nice, virtual stalkers. Or are these for lonely people to pretend they
have company?



>8. Auto-construction bots that appear on their own occasionally. They build
>a specific template (for example: a bird bot building a tree and a nest
>(pot), and other bots building things like huge monuments, houses or even
>mountains. These constructions are treated like normal citizen
>constructions, and since they don't chain-build worlds like AlphaWorld
>should have no trouble with allowing them to generate.

Wouldn't this generate random clutter?



Scented Nectar the banished

Feb 27, 1999, 5:17am

[View Quote]
Isn't easy, but can be made :-)

But I think Steve Hubbard has a point, only because it's difficult to
implement one shouldn't discard the whole idea. AW is like real world, there
are bad guys and there are good guys , and some of the bad ones sure need
some kind of a 'real-world' police that helps/teaches them rules of good
behavior :-))))

certain
>
>Make a private world if you want to be so unfriendly.


Again, I don't think Steve means to be unfriendly or having a 'feature'
like this in order to harass people. It should merely be considered a tool
that of course should be controlled by trusted persons ) helping to
maintain order and good manners. The sad thing is that there are many
persons who behave bad and offending.

But having the bot blocking only citnums has one big disadvantage, the
'tourists', they don't have citnums.

>in
whenever
>
>The Hit(ler)bots have already been perfected to an art, I think.

Scented Nectar, have you been harrased by someone that has been abusing
HitBots ? I ask because you seem to almost hate them :-)

I personally feel that if I myself 'behave' then a HitBot doesn't bother me
at all, instead it feels good to know there are ways to handle
harrasing/offending persons who don't listen when trying to make them see
reason by talking to them.

Of course if the use of HitBots were free, then the HitBots themselves would
become a problem.

In AW it seems to be much easier to control the use of HitBots than for. ex.
in IRC. In IRC anyone who gets 'op'-status can arbitrary kick/ban anyone
they like.

>
>How nice, virtual stalkers. Or are these for lonely people to pretend they
>have company?


Now I think you are being almost insolent ( or are you thinking of
uncontrolled use of animal bots everywhere ? )

I think the idea is good, think of what value it would add to a
'nature-world' :-))



Regards

/Baggis

Feb 27, 1999, 11:00am

Ok, I apologize for the sarcasm (especially towards someone I don't know),
but my points behind it remain the same, as I explain further down in a few
places.

[View Quote]
I think that people will just get more creative, and also innocent strings
in things like pussycat, etc would get zapped. I was hearing of people
getting ejected a few weeks ago for such things, and it seemed that ejection
bots were being tested out. They must have had problems with them or
stopped using them when it began to be discussed publicly, though. I did
not like this automated way to deal with people. It feels like it went to
the point of ridiculous. Also, the world ratings are there for a purpose.
It's fine to guard for the kids, but the option should remain for those of
us who wish to be treated as the adults we are.

>certain

>Again, I don't think Steve means to be unfriendly or having a 'feature'
>like this in order to harass people. It should merely be considered a tool
> that of course should be controlled by trusted persons ) helping to
>maintain order and good manners. The sad thing is that there are many
>persons who behave bad and offending.
>
>But having the bot blocking only citnums has one big disadvantage, the
>'tourists', they don't have citnums.

Restricted zones in an otherwise non-private world would FEEL unfriendly.
Such an exclusive club could easily just have it's doorman-bot exclude ALL
tourists, though, as far as that part of the problem goes.


>whenever
world
>
>Scented Nectar, have you been harrased by someone that has been abusing
>HitBots ? I ask because you seem to almost hate them :-)


Ok, that WAS one of my most venom-spitting posts I've made ever here, it's
true. Being one who has been banned without being even given an official
reason, (by human 'bots', instead though), I think the whole
banning/ejection control thing has gotten out of hand. It's just a big
power trip when used in the 'public' worlds. Mute is there for a reason.
If mute is expanded to include their name showing too, then even that
wouldn't offend anyone who doesn't want to see it. If a person is banned or
ejected, then someone has made the 'mute' choice for you. For instance, I
find it offensive that a guy named Hitler was not ejected when there were
lots of complaints, but people who admitted to being gay, were. Now, I
could care less who someone loves or sleeps with (as long as it's adult
consenting humans), but I don't like people representing genocidal maniacs
in my face. That's my individual mute choice. Everyone has different
morals and comfort levels. Expanding the individuals muting functions to
include names would be better. Also, giving it an optional memory so
they'll be muted for you any other time they appear would be good.

>I personally feel that if I myself 'behave' then a HitBot doesn't bother me
>at all, instead it feels good to know there are ways to handle
>harrasing/offending persons who don't listen when trying to make them see
>reason by talking to them.


I never was ejected for 'bad' behaviour, ever, in my whole time in AW
(years). I was outright banned for (I suspect) asking a question in an
outside forum, which should have caused no problems if the answer to that
question showed honesty on the company's part. Instead, the answer revealed
something they were hoping to keep hidden. I believe they redirected their
anger and embarrassment of being caught towards those of us who had every
right to ask about it in the first place.


>
they
>
>Now I think you are being almost insolent ( or are you thinking of
>uncontrolled use of animal bots everywhere ? )


No, I am thinking that if I entered that world and chose to wear a bird av,
and unbeknownst to me it triggered off a follower bot, it would just be
plain creepy and irritating (shoo, mosquito!). My remark about lonely
people was because I can not see ANY reason such a 'feature' would be
needed. Maybe a new 'flock of birds' avatar would be OK, because you then
ARE all of them. But to be followed by extra birds? What for?

As for the the ones that build random nests or whatever, it would create
lots of unbuildable areas, useful if you want to control lot sizes, but
otherwise like when you find a stray, (possibly clashing) ground piece in
your way.

>I think the idea is good, think of what value it would add to a
>'nature-world' :-))


As long as it's not on a public world, then I would agree. It could be used
as a building tool.

Scented Nectar

Mar 1, 1999, 2:24pm

[View Quote]
I'm glad you turned out to be someone who is excellent at making
constructive contributions to a debate regarding an important ( and
difficult ) matter :-)
And I want to point out that my standpoints primarly concern private worlds.

>I think that people will just get more creative, and also innocent strings
>in things like pussycat, etc would get zapped. I was hearing of people
>getting ejected a few weeks ago for such things, and it seemed that
ejection
>bots were being tested out. They must have had problems with them or
>stopped using them when it began to be discussed publicly, though. I did
>not like this automated way to deal with people. It feels like it went to
>the point of ridiculous. Also, the world ratings are there for a purpose.
>It's fine to guard for the kids, but the option should remain for those of
>us who wish to be treated as the adults we are.


Sure the use of HitBots are a delicate matter, especially ones with bugs in
or abused use of them will cause problems.

But persons that enters a world for one reason, to write as many
profan/offending/dirty words as possible in as short time as possible also
cause lots of distress/discomfort to everyone that happen to be there. I
have personally been in a world when a couple of harassers entered and
started their dirty 'mission. Also, ppl like that don't listen to arguments
told them in a mature/civilized way ( which of course should be tried as
first thing )

>Restricted zones in an otherwise non-private world would FEEL unfriendly.
>Such an exclusive club could easily just have it's doorman-bot exclude ALL
>tourists, though, as far as that part of the problem goes.


When talking about public worlds you're right, but then again, if the world
is public then the eject-right surely is limited to a few citnums if enabled
at all, meaning it never could become 'exclusive clubs' that only allows
certain persons to join.

When talking about private worlds then it must be up to the
worldowner/caretaker to decide which 'policy' to have. Lots of harassers
entering the world and what that causes against what the use of a HitBot
will cause.

>
>
>Ok, that WAS one of my most venom-spitting posts I've made ever here, it's
>true. Being one who has been banned without being even given an official
>reason, (by human 'bots', instead though), I think the whole
>banning/ejection control thing has gotten out of hand. It's just a big
>power trip when used in the 'public' worlds. Mute is there for a reason.
>If mute is expanded to include their name showing too, then even that
>wouldn't offend anyone who doesn't want to see it. If a person is banned
or
>ejected, then someone has made the 'mute' choice for you. For instance, I
>find it offensive that a guy named Hitler was not ejected when there were
>lots of complaints, but people who admitted to being gay, were. Now, I
>could care less who someone loves or sleeps with (as long as it's adult
>consenting humans), but I don't like people representing genocidal maniacs
>in my face. That's my individual mute choice. Everyone has different
>morals and comfort levels. Expanding the individuals muting functions to
>include names would be better. Also, giving it an optional memory so
>they'll be muted for you any other time they appear would be good.


Once again, when talking about public worlds you have your points, but, even
the public worlds have owners and people that are responsible for them,
these persons surely have a policy that tells how to behave in 'their'
worlds. That policy also has to follow any law that could concern it besides
moral aspects.

However, your idea about expaned mute sounds fine, gives more possibility to
control different situations.

>I never was ejected for 'bad' behaviour, ever, in my whole time in AW
>(years). I was outright banned for (I suspect) asking a question in an
>outside forum, which should have caused no problems if the answer to that
>question showed honesty on the company's part. Instead, the answer
revealed
>something they were hoping to keep hidden. I believe they redirected their
>anger and embarrassment of being caught towards those of us who had every
>right to ask about it in the first place.


Well, seems you have had your share of troubles somehow, but I don't see a
clear connection between you being banned for asking 'wrong' questions in
'wrong' place and the use of HitBots.

>No, I am thinking that if I entered that world and chose to wear a bird av,
>and unbeknownst to me it triggered off a follower bot, it would just be
>plain creepy and irritating (shoo, mosquito!). My remark about lonely
>people was because I can not see ANY reason such a 'feature' would be
>needed. Maybe a new 'flock of birds' avatar would be OK, because you then
>ARE all of them. But to be followed by extra birds? What for?


Hmmm... this surely shows that different persons have different things they
like/dislike :-)

I would consider it rather cool to be followed by a bird avatar when
entering a 'nature'-world as a bird:-) But of course it would be nice if
there was some way to make it leave by giving it a command.

>As for the the ones that build random nests or whatever, it would create
>lots of unbuildable areas, useful if you want to control lot sizes, but
>otherwise like when you find a stray, (possibly clashing) ground piece in
>your way.


Sure is hard to implement in a 'smart' way :-)


OK, I think this subject is brought to its limits unless you have something
more to add ? The main thing is that we can agree in that we sometimes
disagree :-)

Thanks for an interesting debate :-)

/Baggis

1  |   Order by index