1  2  |   Order by index

Feb 21, 2003, 6:28pm

Dear Activeworlds CommunitY,

We have just uploaded the rules page for the Cy Awards.
Please make sure you check them out before starting any builds for this
years entries.
One major change is the world rating participation.
Adult themed world owners, please check this out.
We are sorry we have had to make a choice, and we truly hope there will
be no negative or disparaging comments towards the adult worlds.
They are both beautiful and have wonderful folks in them:)


Sincerely,

The Cy Awards:)

Feb 21, 2003, 11:23pm

You may not mass-telegram or spam at congested places, however there are no
limitations on paying AWI lots of money to advertise yourself via the
marketing and advertisement signs / pictures within most AWI ground zeros.

If you are going to pay lots of money to use mutliple citizenships... feel
free...AWI is the event sponcsor after all... But make sure we dont catch
you ;)

Don't offer people things for votes. However there are some nice private
acounts that get paid to alphabit... if you happen to send an email asking
for the details nothing will happen...

No plagiarism! ie: No using BOTS TO COPY WORK! But if you use a macro
scanner thats fine ;)

No hosting of an unearned Cy Statue or a replica of one. If the statue is
not removed, you will not be eligible for Cy Awards in the future. The Cy
statues are passworded and copywritten material. Of course you all know the
AW object path password....

People who serve on the Cy Awards committee are not eligible to receive
Awards. Cause we would cheat..

Citizens only are allowed to vote. Register now!

Any nomination for a Cy Award must meet the Activeworlds Guidelines, be "X"
rated, and appropriate for all audiences. You know noone uses ratings

Feb 22, 2003, 12:31am

Strike!....Thwack!:)

[View Quote]

Feb 24, 2003, 4:31am

whats the problem with that?

actually... even though you where being sarcastic , I don't disagree with
the "rules" you suggested. cept for the macro scanner one of course.

and if you think any one pays any money to be "advertised" LOL ! at a
GZ, you have a more grandiose idea of the earning power of a world caretaker
than I've ever known!!!!

but other than that.... I cant see the faults in what you suggested.....gaps
in your knowlege and naivety yes, faults no

[View Quote]

Feb 24, 2003, 3:01pm

Interesting that "We" rushed to publish these new rules yet the rest of the
site remains totally incomplete. This gives me a very indelible impression
that "We" is more concered with enforcement issues than the issue of
recognition of excellence for which the Cy is supposed to stand.

In their post here, why does "We" even bother to acknowledge the beauty of
adult worlds and how wonderful the people in these worlds are if these
worlds are excluded from participating in a COMMUNITY event?

If adult worlds are not recognized for their efforts and contributions by
the governors of an event which is supposed to be for all of the AW
community this would seem to me that such worlds do not even exist to the
"We" of the awards committee. Hence, the apology "We" offers for
nonexistent worlds must be absolutely insincere, just a self-defensive
conciliatory blow off. A feeble appeasement made by a bunch of
self-righteous, moralistic paranoiac prudes.

The Cy Awards, most often regarded as a self-serving sham for a very narrow
clique of inner circle elite, has finally hit rock bottom with their
self-imposed rule of non-recognition for worlds which comprise a significant
portion of the AW *community*. Instead of calling this the Cy Award, a
more apt name might be the Junior Cy awards. Or how about the "Good Clean
Cy" awards?

What a crock of crap.

Sidris


[View Quote]

Feb 24, 2003, 3:25pm

negative negative negative spam......

It's way to easy this day in age to just sit in your armchair and spout negative politics when none is needed.
Your way too ignorant for "us" to begin listening to your rants.

Where were you when this issue was discussed last fall? "We" are sick of your types ruining the
community atmosphere around here. Knock it off....If you have a better idea, then do
something about it instead of cutting down everyone else when they try. Take your negativity
and start another universe for it...."we" don't want it here.

The only "crock of crap" I see is your very words.

Leo :)



[View Quote]

Feb 24, 2003, 3:33pm

The reason that "We" posted the rules first was because that's what
*everyone else* was so concerned with. Maybe if everyone had stopped all
their incessant whining about insignificant rules for a relatively (in
the grand scheme of things) insignificant event, we would never have
reached this point in the first place.

To be honest, I think the main problem with the CY Awards is that it's
not exclusive *enough*. By that I mean, by giving the general community
a voice in how things are run and who gets in, all that can lead to is
bickering about rules, who was more deserving of a nom, why this or that
shouldn't get a CY, ad naseum.

But if it was just Bit and/or the CY Committee calling the shots on
rules, noms, and even the winners (much like the Academy for the
Oscars), then perhaps we'd actually have a legitimate Awards ceremony
rather than something that everyone (it seems) thinks of as a total joke.

[View Quote] --
Goober King
A total joke
gooberking at utn.cjb.net

Feb 24, 2003, 3:40pm

I think your exactly right with this Goober.
Don't give the crybabies a chance to have a say.
If they do not like the CY's then they do not have to
have anything to do with them. They can just ignore them.

Leo :)

ps; Better even..... start their own awards and see how THEY like it when others pitch a fit over THEIR ideas.


[View Quote]

Feb 24, 2003, 10:39pm

I was unaware that, as a paying customer of ActiveWorlds, that I am to be
excluded from community events because I didn't participate in any
particular discussion which took place in the past. Is this rule of
exclusion published somewhere? Is it only for me or does it include
everyone who may have missed discussions which took place yesterday, a week
ago, a month ago?

What have my "ignorant types" ruined, Bud? What does an opposing and well
stated opinion ever ruin but someone else's false sense of smug comfort and
belonging?

Here's the news but you probably aren't going to like it, Bud. I am in AW.
I am posting to this newsgroup. I am expressing my opinions about the Cy
awards and anything else I care to expound upon, like it or not. I will
continue to do so whenever I see fit because I pay for these privileges,
just the same as everyone else who has bought into this exclusive members
only club. Your "like it or leave it" attitude is immature and cowardly,
it's an attitude which has gone farther over the ages to try to hinder
progress more than anything else. Thankfully, it's an attitude which fails
more often than it succeeds. Ditto for your edict that I am "way too
ignorant" for my opinions to matter or count. I suppose you, Bud, are the
self-appointed barometer of intelligence here?

Now, please don't disappoint me. Come back with some more of your
illustrious second grader generalizations. In the meantime, if anyone would
be kind enough to steer me toward the mystery rules of this secret society
I'd certainly appreciate it. I'd hate to shake Bud out of his armchair by
offering ideas which may not comply with his own, whatever they may be.
However, if anyone one else may be interested in my ideas or in sharing
theirs with me regarding the Cys or any other aspect of AW, I'd be happy to
hear them via email or telegrams. Just be careful if you post them here or
Bud might get upset.

Sidris :)



[View Quote]

Feb 25, 2003, 12:31am

But what is there to be concerned about? Why all this alarm about
adult-content inacceptibility when the solution is as easy as "caveat
emptor'? Completely prohibiting the participation of a huge and
artistically worthy segment of the AW *community* negates the idea of
community entirely. Therefore it's my opinion that the Cy awards are not a
community event. They have become quite apparently a very NON-community
event and should be promoted as such. Period.

As far as bickering goes, whenever there's a committee of more than one
person, expression of difference is guaranteed. Ask anyone with a
boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife, child, friend, neighbor... well, I'm
sure you get my drift. Viva la difference because difference is usually the
most travelled road to improvement and progress. Barring the occasional
traffic fatality :) But in a sense I do agree with you, Goober, it seems to
me that the old adage "too many cooks spoil the brew" held sway,
particularly with the last Cys. My impression was that the committee was
overly concerned with social acceptibility to the point that they pandered
to fears instead of disspelling them. It was this same pandering which
caused the awards' true meaning to be lost on me and many others. The web
site vote reenactment only raised red flags in my mind. Plus I felt the
"nomination yard", although a good idea, was confusingly executed. But like
anything else, improvement can happen.

Improvement, however, will never happen as long as these events are ruled by
people who cling to attitudes of "like it or leave it" (see BinaryBud's
illuminating reply to my original post in this thread). The devolvement of
the Cy awards isn't going to correct itself as long as this self-limiting
attitude prevails. Most people need to feel they're welcome to take part,
that their efforts will be appreciated even if their ideas are determined as
unsuitable.


[View Quote]

Feb 25, 2003, 10:06am

I'm not flaming, or supporting any particular side of this arguement at all.
Just pointing out that the CY awards isn't run by AW.....
AW only provides the world and such........
So the fact that you or me or anyone, for that matter, is a "paying customer of ActiveWorlds" really doesn't amount to a hill of
beans :O/
The CY's are and always have been a seperate entity from AW.

Whether that's a good or bad thing..... I don't know.

Personally I feel a non-biased, impartial, third-party judging comittee would be best.
People who don't really care about who's "popular" or in the "special circle" or what have you.....
A comittee formed of people who aren't "buddy-buddy" with any particular faction, group, individuals or otherwise.
A group of people who have no particular agenda, no desire for self-aggrandizement, who don't care to win any awards even.

I guess that's probably not realistic here though......... but it would be nice.
Anyways, That's just my opinion, which also doesn't amount to a hill of beans......
Just thinking out loud.....

JB




[View Quote]

Feb 25, 2003, 11:37am

Of course your twisting my comments but thats ok cause I know exactly what your up to.
Listen ....if you don't like the CY awards make your own don't constantly knock the people that are TRYING to reward others for their work. Remember Sidris it was the CY's last year that accepted the adult content and the COMMUNITY that did not....so what gives? I have no agenda and am associated with any one on these issues... these are my own observations.
I think you are correct in that the CY's are NOT a community event. It's a private event aimed at recognizing the community.

Leo :) aka BinaryBud

Ps; sorry for getting snippy wit ya..... I just get tired of the flat out negativeness.....if your so hot about this subject ...then do something besides criticize everyone that is trying.

[View Quote]

Feb 25, 2003, 11:30pm

(Not a reply to Binarybud in particular, but to the entire thread.)

Seems the CY-fighting has started early this year. I guess it is like
Christmas, ecah year the decorations comes earlier in shopwindows.

Last year it started during the CY and mostly after it, this year even long
before. Keep on fighting people, who knows you might win the CY-fight award
this year :-)

Drac

Feb 26, 2003, 3:59am

Bud... what am I up to, exactly? Oh, and tell me how I'm spamming while
you're at it. Still shakin' my head over that one. Since you apologized
for being snippy I'll calm down. I probably won't forget that you called me
ignorant, though. :)

I don't dislike the Cys. Everyone deserves recognition for positive effort.
I just feel it's a mistake to exclude adult-content worlds because they're a
huge part of our *community*. More than this, art and innovation cross all
boundaries, no matter who creates them or where they're created. I mean...
I keep remembering something about RoboBuilder and an opium den :)

Okay, I'm kidding, truly.

As far as a better idea goes, okay, Bud, I suppose it's fair for you to
throw down the gauntlet (after calling me ignorant!). The best I can offer
is what I have offered in the past. That, just like the worlds now have
ratings, that the Cy committee post world ratings for every nominee (which I
think they do) and then offer a standard disclaimer that these worlds be
visited at the visitor's risk. This way no one risks offense and, in the
case of minors, responsibility is left where it should be - with the
parents.

As an adult, I'd much rather use my own discernment, make my own choices,
than have them made for me. This is what the exclusion of adult worlds from
the Cy is doing to everyone. Besides, it's also re-shaping the entire
tradition of the Cy awards just as much as trying to implement an entirely
new awards event would do.

Sid
(never negative!)

[View Quote]

Feb 26, 2003, 12:16pm

yea sorry for the "ignorant" thing....that was uncalled for and quite lame. :(

BTW I totally agree with your points. Just not the way you started out. lol

and Count also has a good point..... here we go again....:)

I think the CY's need to be 100% independant from AWI. In MY Opinion...AWI is the reason for all the "neutering"....It's a "liability issue" If the CY's didnot needthe world for the event I believe they could do whatever they wanted. But since they are using an AWI sponsered world for the event, then they must remain "politically correct".

Leo :)

Again sorry for my "rudeness". I have no excuse for it.



[View Quote]

Feb 26, 2003, 8:21pm

If that was suggested last fall, then perhaps things would be different. I
don't recall anybody even suggesting ratings be posted for any nominee.
That is a satisfactory way to do things, imo. But what's done is done.

Most parental responsibilities do not require society to help with raising a
child. However in this case and any other case like it (Ludicris, eminem,
good ol' ozzy), I myself still think responsibility for what is made public
and therefore what kids see lies with everyone, not just the parents (the
only Hillary Clinton issue Bill and I agree with, I think), and I'm content
with the decision that the committee made. It takes a village, people! :P

Chris

[View Quote]

Feb 26, 2003, 11:42pm

Don't make me smack you, Chris. If it really "took a village", then
there wouldn't be a single upstanding citizen left, since people barely
try to know their own neighbors these days, much less the entire
village. If we keep shifting the responsibility off parents and onto
other sources, then parents will stop doing their jobs altogether.

It's not hard for a parent to walk into the room every so often and peek
at what his/her child is look at on that little computer screen. If said
parent doesn't like what he/she sees, it's just as easy to tell the
child to shut the "bad stuff" off.

Now, having said that, I also think putting ratings on everything would
be a great idea. That way, you could include *everyone* in the
community, and at the same time make the parents' jobs that much easier.
Wouldn't want parents to have to ask their kids "So, what's 'Gor' mean?" :P

[View Quote]
--
Goober King
Agreeing with Clinton?! *boggle*
gooberking at utn.cjb.net

Feb 27, 2003, 2:34am

at what his/her child is look at on that little computer screen. If said
parent doesn't like what he/she sees, it's just as easy to tell the
child to shut the "bad stuff" off."

If that's all there was to it, I guess it would be hard not to agree with
you, especially if the parent were there 100% of those formative years. But
it's not all there is to it, and just why don't we know our village and why
shouldn't we? And besides that, whatever he or she finds on the other side
of that computer screen is part of his village.

other sources, then parents will stop doing their jobs altogether."

That's not shifting responsibility, that is being responsible. A good parent
is a good parent and a bad one a bad one, no matter what you do, but why not
do our parts to make the world a better place? Besides, it just might make a
difference in YOUR life someday. Your child needs to know there is a world
outside his door, and how to handle it. The neighborhood cop, the school
teacher and principle, the corner store owner, the old lady next door, (on
and on and on) , everyone your child knows, or their counterparts, are
people he will deal with all his life and if they don't have a good
relationship now, they're both missing a lot. What child can have a
well-rounded personality if he is isolated?

A good villager will watch out for the child that is out of his parents'
sight, they will risk being called a meddler to make sure he doesn't walk
out on that ice or get in the car with the person they think is a stranger.
How many lives do you think were saved or at least saved from lifelong
nightmares by some villager who cared about some unrelated child? Too
obscure to answer? Well then think about the news stories you've read lately
where a life wasn't spared because some villager didn't care or was afraid
to get involved. Don't isolate your future children from people who could
help you raise him nor selfishly keep all your nurturing abilities within
your own walls, it just might make the difference that's needed.


Of course it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it just takes a
village to raise a child well.

As far as the Cy's, isn't it possible where a category that both Gor and
non-Gor worlds can be nominated for to have separate entries so that they
wouldn't compete? If (conceivably) under 18's aren't allowed in some worlds,
is it fair to them or the worlds themselves to lump them together, because
they (supposedly) couldn't be voted on by some cits anyway? Logically, the
people who are allowed to see them should be the ones to judge them, no more
or no less. I mean, it's not like the Academy Awards, which aren't decided
by the general population anyway. But if they were, how could it be fair if
half (or whatever) of the voting public weren't allowed to watch whatever
percent of the movies they were allowed to vote for? Unless of course in AW
and those imaginary Academy Awards, only those of legal adult age were
allowed to vote. Not really fair or even statistically correct either, since
they wouldn't be voted on by everyone who pays to see them. It might be a
complicated task, but that's the way it is obviously, by the bickering it
raises.

[View Quote]

Feb 27, 2003, 2:36am

Most parental responsibilities do not require society to help with raising a
child. Did you not read that? :P It's my disclaimer!

Parents have responsibility to monitor what their child is doing. But it's
society's job to help. If that wasn't true, you'd have porn on basic cable
in this country.

Chris

[View Quote]

Feb 27, 2003, 2:36am

So we are essentially in agreement...

Chris

[View Quote]

Feb 27, 2003, 2:40am

> As far as the Cy's, isn't it possible where a category that both Gor and
> non-Gor worlds can be nominated for to have separate entries so that they
> wouldn't compete? If (conceivably) under 18's aren't allowed in some worlds,
> is it fair to them or the worlds themselves to lump them together, because
> they (supposedly) couldn't be voted on by some cits anyway? Logically, the
> people who are allowed to see them should be the ones to judge them, no more
> or no less. I mean, it's not like the Academy Awards, which aren't decided
> by the general population anyway. But if they were, how could it be fair if
> half (or whatever) of the voting public weren't allowed to watch whatever
> percent of the movies they were allowed to vote for? Unless of course in AW
> and those imaginary Academy Awards, only those of legal adult age were
> allowed to vote. Not really fair or even statistically correct either, since
> they wouldn't be voted on by everyone who pays to see them. It might be a
> complicated task, but that's the way it is obviously, by the bickering it
> raises.

Because porn isn't nominated for Academy Awards. I don't see a nominee for best
orgasm faked. Or best BDSM style. Please, spare me from the overly cliche rebuttal
that Gor isn't porn... it's adult material and that isn't awarded any type of public
award. No matter what. We're not talking the statue of David or the cieling of the
Sistine Chappel here, we're talking sexual context and slavery.

--Bowen--

Feb 27, 2003, 2:55am

Well I don't know about that-I've never been there. But that's why I said
separate. It isn't the Academy Awards anyway and I guess it is nominated for
here. So..... I guess as long as the group that runs the CY's allows them in
at all (presumably on their artistry and non-porn merits) then those are the
ones who would consider all logical suggestions. The one's who don't like it
I guess should vote by not participating at all.

[View Quote]

Feb 27, 2003, 3:39am

Actually, there *was* an X-rated film that won an Oscar (3 Oscars, in
fact); Midnight Cowboy in 1969. :)

And like CarolAnn said, the adult worlds don't get nominated for their
adult content. They just happen to also have adult content in them along
with whatever it is they were nominated for. So if there was a way to
show what the adult world was nominated for, without showing the actual
adult content itself, that would make everyone happy I would hope, yes?

Of course, that could prove tricky for things like Landscaping, where
the only way to see it is to actually visit the world it's in... :-/
[View Quote]
--
Goober King
Movie Trivia Buff
gooberking at utn.cjb.net

Feb 27, 2003, 11:15am

Please keep the ideas coming folks!
We are listening:)

Feb 27, 2003, 2:12pm

[View Quote] Well, the Academy Awards aren't as community oriented as the CY's. Which says that
if the AA doesn't do it (or only did it once) it probably shouldn't be common
practice for a super community oriented event to be doing it either.

--Bowen--

Feb 27, 2003, 2:20pm

[View Quote] Ok, so it happened once. It hasn't happened since, has it? That must say that
either the regulations in 1969 were very lax, or it wasn't really that X-rated.

> And like CarolAnn said, the adult worlds don't get nominated for their
> adult content. They just happen to also have adult content in them along
> with whatever it is they were nominated for. So if there was a way to
> show what the adult world was nominated for, without showing the actual
> adult content itself, that would make everyone happy I would hope, yes?

I don't think the Oscar's are as community oriented as the Acadmey is, but even if
they are... one time is pretty freaking rare. And since the CY's are extremely
community oriented... one should stand that if a world contains adult material, it
shouldn't even be considered for nomination... no matter how great it is. You can
probably find something just as great out there if you looked harder. Not to mention
the point that Gor world owners have a lot of money and probably bought someone to do
the design/terrain/objects/whathaveyou which totally defeats the point of the CY's
(awarding someone for their work and not their money).

> Of course, that could prove tricky for things like Landscaping, where
> the only way to see it is to actually visit the world it's in... :-/

Well, I'm sure with things like Landscaping, you can find it almost anywhere else you
look. There's probably things even better than a Gor world... they just happen to
come to mind first to make the job of finding a nominee easy and because you know
they can afford great looking worlds. But, I won't mention the money thing again if
you don't want me too.

--Bowen--

rebuttal
public
the
>
>
> --
> Goober King
> Movie Trivia Buff
> gooberking at utn.cjb.net
>

Feb 27, 2003, 2:36pm

goober king <gooberking at utn.cjb.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:3E5DA4D5.6010400 at utn.cjb.net...
> Actually, there *was* an X-rated film that won an Oscar (3 Oscars, in
> fact); Midnight Cowboy in 1969. :)
>
Oh yes I remember that movie, especially for one song that appeared in it. "
Everybody's talking ( but I cannot hear a word they're saying) by
Nilson),,,,somehow it fits in here also *lol*

Drac

Feb 27, 2003, 2:42pm

Reading all this arguing (once again) about the CYs, I really do not
understand what is the problem.
People seem to argue mostly about if worlds rated differently should be
allowed to compete in same category.

Maybe one could simple vote for best G-rated world, best PG-rated world etc?
Of course there are categories that do not require visiting any world, like
best bot, worst webapge, most hated person in NGs etc; in these everyone
would be allowed to participate.

Drac
cy awards <cyawards at awcommunity.org> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e568bf3$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Dear Activeworlds CommunitY,
>
> We have just uploaded the rules page for the Cy Awards.
> Please make sure you check them out before starting any builds for
this
> years entries.
> One major change is the world rating participation.
> Adult themed world owners, please check this out.
> We are sorry we have had to make a choice, and we truly hope there
will
> be no negative or disparaging comments towards the adult worlds.
> They are both beautiful and have wonderful folks in them:)
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> The Cy Awards:)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Feb 27, 2003, 3:16pm

*blink* Where do you get this assumption that Goreans are rolling in
dough? Just because they own a world and have their own OPs, that
suddenly means they have all this cash to throw at object modelers and
avatar designers?

Remember what I said about not talking about something you know nothing
about? Well, you're doing it again. :P

[View Quote] --
Goober King
'Tis better to remain silent and thought a fool than to etc, etc, etc...
gooberking at utn.cjb.net

Feb 27, 2003, 3:20pm

Stick to the facts when presenting your arguments... Probablys and maybes
won't further your point of view.

SW Chris

[View Quote]

1  2  |   Order by index