1  |   Order by index

Feb 11, 2003, 9:55am

I have been wondering what the policy of AW is based on?
Do you organize competitions of who has the worst ideas and then inforce
them?

At several occasion I asked to see the policy, when i had trouble with my
world name. I never get to see it, the world was just taken away from me.
But that is not importnat now.

I would like to hear who came up with the brialliant idea of banning
tourists in the first place? And what possible could have been the arguments
for doing this?
Did it ever occured to this moron that tourists are potential citizens
read paying customers)?

Since it looks like AW is slowly killing itself; workers reduced, software
development is not much to cheer for and the most important issue; customers
leaving.
Would it just not be best to close it down and say Fu** it all ! It hurts me
so much to see something I love suffer and beeing slowly killed. I guess it
is no use of even trying to give you any advice, since only the worst ideas
leading to a death of AW is taken in consideration.

Drac

Feb 12, 2003, 5:54pm

With the tourists plan, they were counting on the addiction of their
customers and they were completely right : even the ones who where at the
first row, yelling so loud in jannuary 2002 (with petitions, tons of posts
here and so on) finally paid for tourist access, giving AW the best reason
in the world to keep that system up.

So unlike you, I don't think that the "morons" are really in the AW team.

In my humble opinion, the AW mistake was more not to have seen the
consequences further in time.




"count dracula" <dracula at netsonic.fi> a écrit
news:3e48e4c6$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com:

> I have been wondering what the policy of AW is based on?
> Do you organize competitions of who has the worst ideas and then
> inforce them?
>
> At several occasion I asked to see the policy, when i had trouble with
> my world name. I never get to see it, the world was just taken away
> from me. But that is not importnat now.
>
> I would like to hear who came up with the brialliant idea of banning
> tourists in the first place? And what possible could have been the
> arguments for doing this?
> Did it ever occured to this moron that tourists are potential citizens
> read paying customers)?
>
> Since it looks like AW is slowly killing itself; workers reduced,
> software development is not much to cheer for and the most important
> issue; customers leaving.
> Would it just not be best to close it down and say Fu** it all ! It
> hurts me so much to see something I love suffer and beeing slowly
> killed. I guess it is no use of even trying to give you any advice,
> since only the worst ideas leading to a death of AW is taken in
> consideration.
>
> Drac
>
>
>

Feb 13, 2003, 5:33am

Seems like the seriously shoulda thought about 2 levels of tourist access -
build rights and no build rights =\ Where's the harm in letting them
*tour* the world, like a tourist is supose to?

[View Quote]

Feb 13, 2003, 4:12pm

3.4 has a world option to allow or disallow tourist building

E


[View Quote]

Feb 13, 2003, 4:12pm

What policy do you want to see?

E


[View Quote]

Feb 13, 2003, 4:27pm

I wonder if he does not mean to say "goals" or "gameplan". Just where is it your headed with the system? I't's kinda like.... if ya don't know where your going......then..... how can you figure out how to get there. type thing.


[View Quote]

Feb 13, 2003, 7:10pm

I am refering to the policy against world names starting with something else
than a letter. I signed up BEFORE that rule came, yet my world was taken
away from me. Tom told me some bullshit about if not starting with a letter
there will be problem in future realises of AW; yet AW itself has atleast
one world syarting with a " at ". There are also other worlds starting woth
others than a letter, so I am wondering ; how come a policy only concern
some of the customers?
Not long ago I spotted a new world starting with a "!" , I wrote Tom about
and and he said it was a mistake. I have not cheked if that world is still
running tho.

Drac
e n z o <enzo at activeworlds.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e4be00e$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> What policy do you want to see?
>
> E
>
>
[View Quote]

Feb 16, 2003, 11:41am

no, the ones in the front role, and 2nd row left. the ones all the way at
the back, who didnt care much about the money, are those who paid.

and the morons are almost certainly in the aw team. look at how many
customers they lost, and are still loosing, aw is getting more and more
boring, and people see no more reason to stay,

[View Quote]

Feb 16, 2003, 11:43am

your buissness plan, your polices on world names, and such things.

[View Quote]

Feb 16, 2003, 11:47am

ya, but you still have to pay $70 to let them in, so whats the point of
letting tourists in, if you aint even gonna let them build? kinda silly isnt
it? you guys need to rethink the whole tourist thing. need to rethink
everything, cuz very soon you are gonna fail miserably, especially with the
release of second life, which even thou may not be that great, is better
then aw, and about the same price. only thing is you need broad band, but
most people have that anyway (i should be getting sat internet soon :) ).
well good luck with it all, better start saving your money, cuz your gonna
need it real soon. hell, start thinking up ideas for a new buissness.

-SWE

[View Quote]

Feb 16, 2003, 6:46pm

Well I don't think they said the same fee is for both build and no
build...maybe no build is half the price or something *shrug*.


[View Quote]

Feb 17, 2003, 12:24pm

he said it was a world option, i.e: set by the caretaker in the world, like
terrain. so you probably dont pay less.
[View Quote]

Feb 17, 2003, 1:53pm

Seems to me if you dont like the cost of something you just dont buy it. I
paid 70 bucks to allow tourists and it seemed fair to me, after all, each
presence in a world does eat up more resources. I also think that if
tourists could see what they were missing by not getting a cit they would be
more likely to get one so they could build. If not then no space for them.
So turning off tourist building allows for more enticing them to get a cit
and less freeloading. If you want to play then youve got to pay. I suppose
its all a matter of opinion and what you can afford. If I cant afford
something I simply dont buy it. And ill bet that calling people morons and
such doesnt inspire them to answer you. KBM

Feb 17, 2003, 1:55pm

FULLY AGREED! Thank you :)

[View Quote]

Feb 17, 2003, 2:36pm

Vary wise sentiments King Bluemax...

LF

Feb 18, 2003, 1:27am

Yeah, people with sense. ^_^ I agree too.

Chris


[View Quote]

Feb 18, 2003, 10:32am

The question was more like; in the middle of my "rental agreement" my host
told me I cannot have visitors unless I pay for them. If it had costed 70$
from the day I signed up; fone then I could I have chosen, do I agree on it
or not, but when the host suddenly decide to start charging for something, I
cannot see that as a very fair thing.
How would you feel if the person you rent your flat from would suddenly come
and say: sorry you cannot have out of city guests unless you pay me 100$ ?
The resources you are talking about. AW do not loose anything on letting
tourist visit my world. It is MY bandwith ( eg the one hosting the OP and
world) that is getting used.

What comes to morons, I really thing one is entitled to call the person(s)
responsible for the marketing of AW a moron/morons. It is actually a quite
nice word, much nicer than he/she/they deserve.

Drac

king bluemax <kingbluemax at shucohome.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e51058a$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Seems to me if you dont like the cost of something you just dont buy it. I
> paid 70 bucks to allow tourists and it seemed fair to me, after all, each
> presence in a world does eat up more resources. I also think that if
> tourists could see what they were missing by not getting a cit they would
be
> more likely to get one so they could build. If not then no space for them.
> So turning off tourist building allows for more enticing them to get a cit
> and less freeloading. If you want to play then youve got to pay. I suppose
> its all a matter of opinion and what you can afford. If I cant afford
> something I simply dont buy it. And ill bet that calling people morons
and
> such doesnt inspire them to answer you. KBM
>
>

Feb 19, 2003, 12:17pm

emmm, you went completely out of context. i never said anything about the
price of tourist entrance being to high or anything, and i sure as hell
didnt call anyone a moron. what i said was that the whole "tourist build"
feature is more or less pointless, since if your gonna be paying $70 for
tourist access, and you have a public build world, you wouldnt exactly not
let tourists build now would you?

[View Quote]

Feb 19, 2003, 12:22pm

i agree, i dont even think what they did was legal, accually im pretty sure
it wasnt. all world owners can file a complaint if they want. since you only
have to follow the rules set out when you signed the contract, then both
parties are legally bound to it, and cannot change the contact unless there
is an agreement for the change between both parties (AW and world owner). so
i guess aw have to start giving out free tourist access for a while.


[View Quote]

Feb 19, 2003, 4:59pm

I was trying to summarize, sorry. Ill be more clear. I was refering to the
portion of the original thread and it wasnt you there, that called anyone a
moron but the word moron was used.This post is directed to the group as a
whole not just you. I didnt get charged more money by my host at all or aw
until my world was up for renewal. Which, built into their user agreement
that most people (except lawyers lol) dont bother to read, im pretty sure,
not 100%, that at that time AW has the right to edit their policies and
costs. Most companys reserve the right to refuse or edit service at ANY time
they want and the agreement usually is only valid for a defined period,
which here is undoubtably one year, and as soon as you click accept youve
agreed to it. And After 6 years of Business Law classes, I can comfortably
say that here in the USA that by clicking the "agree" or "next" button no
matter what it says pretty much always stands up. Ive seen lines in user
agreements like " A Company reserves the right to, with NOTICE to you, the
user, at any time, for any reason, edit, change or terminate this
agreement", ....Click, LOL, I cant read all that... LOL, Read one of the
User Agreements on MS Windows, LOL, theres stuff in there thats
unbelievable. I dont have the user agreement here, as im one of those "Click
Next" people lol. Mabee ENZO could dig up the world owners user agreement,
so we could review it better, as he probably knows right where its at. When
I renewed it was clear to me that id have to pay to allow tourists and i
made the decision to do so. And to be honest, I may after 3.4 is released or
available to me, not allow tourists to build in my world, Why not, they can
come in and see what they are missing then pony up for a cit. Make great
business sense to me. My post may have been out of context with yours
directly but it was more geared toward replying to the group and their
different opinions instead of one person. Looking back at the posts you did
say "and the morons are almost certainly in the aw team." Im really not
looking to argue, just state my opinion. People keep saying that AW is gonna
fail, and I think it already came close because of the way it was, And these
changes have saved it financially. Im confident that the future of AW is in
the right hands, after all, those with the most to loose from its demise are
at the helm. Just my view, not trying to throw stones. KBM

Feb 19, 2003, 5:40pm

emm, the company is not allowed to have the right to change the policies
agreed upon in a contract, they can only change the contract when its time
for renewal, and the new polices are on the renewal page, other wise, the
polices do not effect you.


[View Quote]

Feb 19, 2003, 7:15pm

They can if you agree to an agreement that says "We reserve the right to
change this agreement whenever we want to, without your permission. So
nyah!" If you agree to that, then you've essentially told the company
"Here you go. Please screw with me!"

[View Quote] --
Goober King
An open invitation
gooberking at utn.cjb.net

Feb 20, 2003, 1:01pm

but they arent allowed to have it! not sure how it works in america, but
there is a law stating that you cannot take away any rights of the consumer.
and, not having the contract changed is pretty much a right.

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 4:13pm

In most cases in the USA they have to NOTIFY you of a change but they can
reserve the right to change it. And with internet based companies the laws
of the state in which it is located usually apply. They are in Mass. not
sure what the laws there are exactly as im in Connecticut and spend most of
my law research time on tax laws here. But to fully understand any of it we
need to know the ruls on it in Mass. and exactly what it says in the TOS
Agreement for world owners. Most companies that have a legal team do those
kind of things and lawyers rarely goof it up enough to open up any
liabilities. KBM
[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 4:18pm

And like I said, if *you agree to it* then they are allowed to change
it! That's the way the world works. If you see an agreement that says
"We can change whatever whenever." and you say "I Agree", then you just
gave the company free license to do whatever they want to the contract.
If you don't agree to the contract, then they can't change it on you. :)

Oh, and changing a contract, in and of itself, has nothing to do with
consumer rights (if anything, it's about company rights). It's only when
the contract gets changed so that it somehow infringes on a consumer's
rights is when you can start calling the lawyers. And again, this is
only a problem if you *agree* to a contract that has the ability to be
changed.

[View Quote] --
Goober King
Agree to disagree
gooberking at utn.cjb.net

Feb 20, 2003, 8:34pm

but contacts are not allowed to be changed! otherwise they could bill you 3
times for the product, and notify you about it, and you wont be able to do
anything.

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 10:11pm

They can, as long as they notified you about it. What they couldnt do is
start triple billing you without notifying you. That would be illegal, and
they would most probabaly lose a court case (or settle the dispute
themselves.

The new contract came with each upgrade - if you use any version onwards
from 3.3, you are bound to it.


[View Quote]

Feb 23, 2003, 9:32pm

Replying to an old post, I know...

This is one of those times that I'm actually glad ENZO doesn't see the
newsgroups as an indicator of public opinion. Have you ever thought about
this feature being used for AW's public building worlds? Egocentric world
builders. ;) It's not for you. :P

SW Chris

[View Quote]

Feb 23, 2003, 9:38pm

[View Quote] Don't worry, we're used to it with TZ.

--Bowen--

1  |   Order by index