Category: Zone BBS Suggestions and Feedback
The very nature of this topic's title, which is itself a quoted string of text from the main page of The Zone BBS, has inspired me to contest certain decisions made by the Zone Staff, which may or may not have been influenced by the opinions and views of a select group of Zone BBS members. The opinions of these members should not be implied as the whole, nor even the greater part of the Zone community's outlook upon various regulations which have recently been instated, and herein, I shall attempt to outline the reasons why these rulings should be abolished.
Firstly, I shall bring to your attention the following quote, as extracted from the Terms of Service, a document which requires agreement by all users upon their creation of an account, and may also require their consent when any revisions are made.
100 percent agreed kai, and well said
I'd also like to remind everyone about the first amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress
of grievances."
maybe this doesn't explain a lot, but I hope you all know whare I'm coming from with this
I I totally agree with Ki. while you say "freedom of speech" and "we're not your parents" why do you keep on implementing rules and restrictions on and on?
Meanwhile, while talking about sex and talking vigorous things are not affecting the minor kids, how come this small funny qn's are affecting? Moreover, while all the zoners are having the option of ignoring anyone, including the cl's, why don't they make use of the ignore feature? or the ignore link?
So, as per my opinion, if this is the site allow us for freedom of speech, these silly things are not to be made as a restriction. If not, say that this is a restricted site for minors and kids.
i so agree, plus system messages, come on!. not only would you hear the system sound, but system messages do not have the name of the user who sent them. thanks for this topic
very well put together post, but as I always get shot down for having an appinion on here, I'll just keep mine to myself, saving being jumped all over. anyway, like I said, good post.
Why do so many people have a problem with fake QN's anyway? System messages I can understand, but most of the time fake QN's are just stupid things, impersonating people 99% of us know can't be users on the website. It's all in the name of fun, not to be annoying or vindictive or anything like that. There's the ability to turn public QN's off, or to ignore the main offenders, so why do so many people insist on trying to senser what all the rest of us talk about.
"It's my right to free speech, so I'm telling you you have to talk about what I want to talk about..." or something of the sort...
Hmm...Defending the impersonation of other users' quicknotes, eh?
Answer me this question. When I come on to look at quicknotes, to participate in the roling conversation this feature provides, and see about seven people impersonating other people's quicknotes, am I supposed to ignore all of these people? Are you advocating ignoring people on mass? If so, I would say "hell no" in a hurry.
To me, that is backwards. That is, though a rather crude one, a form of fraud, taking advantage of the presence of a screen reader to try and make like someone said something when they did not. By supporting such action, you are asking that each zone user check every quicknote sent for validity. Hell, fucking, no.
This, to me, is not just about Fake QN's or anything else. This is about the Will of the People. A number of folks have engaged in using fake qn's, so many I can't keep count of how many actually have. I can keep count for the number of people who have said to me that they should be banned, which is 0. So, who does this serve? The greater good of the site? The majority of folks on the site? I say neither. Like Kai pointed out in his intro to this topic, for this site to truly embody what it promotes itself as, there would need to be not only a redraft to the cited text, but a complete overhaul. The Zone and its administrators would have to pretty much say, "Yeah, we do need to be your parents." As funny and clever of a line as that is: "We are not your parents" would no longer accurately represent the atmosphere of the Zone if rules like this are implemented.
The contention has been that "some" (how many?) people have complained about fake QN's. So, does that mean if enough people complain about profanity, that too will be banned? If enough people complain about sex talk, that will be banned? They talk about drawing a line, but where does the line get drawn on the ridiculously absurd pettiness that often floats around here and I thought the admins here were against. Do we want to be in a community that is this regulated? Isn't the fact that the zone is pretty open to things said been an attractive quality to those who have joined until now? I know for me, it was a big attraction to see that freedom of speech was valued. I know it was attractive to me to see that admins held the position that if you didn't like what was being posted, you could make use of your ignore link. When did this change?
When did this change? When, and for who, did it become necessary for the Zone to be our parents? When discussing it with 2 different CL's, 1 said, "I don't care, do what you want." after arguments from an overwhelming majority against banning fake qn's. (Paraphrasing). The other said, you have valid points, but this is my job to implement the rules. All of the valid points of freedom of speech, the zone members are not only your community but your customers, no harm is really being done is outweighed by, "It's no longer funny"?
If you took all the people in this topic who support the right to post fake qn's and they were to all post fake qn's (which could be so many by the end), would they be banned? I asked one CL who, God Bless his soul, said he would ban to uphold his duty. But, I ask, is that in the Zone's best interest? For who, for what? Is it in the Zone's best interest to make this place a place where people have to be on guard of what they say and post? Is it best to go against the interests of the majority of the community? I think it's fair to remind admin or CL's as much as they remind us about our agreement to the Zone TOS that the zone members make up the site. The Zone Members should have a huge say in what is acceptable or not, especially when they are helping fund the site.
I think the fact that we even have to debate this topic shows, at least, a slight degradation in the Zone's freedom of speech policy and its stance on being our parents. If that is the case, be up front about it. Put it on your front page instead of the cutesy schmootsy line. The Zone has gotten so big now. It certainly has grown. The problem I think with the Admins and CL's is they are not sure how to deal with such a volume now. I think in cases like this, we really see their inexperience in things like public relations and such. One thing is for certain, they are not holding true to their original design of the site.
I do say all this only because I love the Zone and what it could be. In cases like this, I just feel the need to let it out. What will happen is uncertain, but it will be clear by the end of this topic that if the admins and CL's truly want what will be the best for the community, they will listen when they are right.
But the fact that we have to debate this site shows, in my view, a degradation of the level of content on this system. Fake QN's is attempted fraud. I say it again. You are asking that each zoner checks every quicknote sent for validity? Brilliant move, folks. Just brilliant.
First of all, I think from past posts I've made have made it very clear I'm a huge advocate of free speech. However, this I don't think falls into free speech. Faking public quick notes is making someone believe that someone else posted a quicknote, or at least it has the very real possibility to do so. If you're going to say something, say it as you, don't try to make it look like someone else is saying something. AT best this is dishonest, and could be detrimental to someone else's character.
All hail the Fun Police!
Can you not say the same fraud thing with randomizing (premium) messages? When will they be banned? I've never had my head bashed in, or fucked a goat, or done whatever...but some randomized entrances have that. I'm offended. Ban it.
Well said Dave.
Me thinks some common sense is needed if you can't tell if a QN is real or fake. As I said earlier, people don't tend to post fake QN's in order to trick people into thinking someone else is actually saing something for real. So many arguements against this fake QN thing just don't stand up as far as I'm concerned. Way too many people around here are pretty damn sensitive...
The difference between premium messages, randomizer, is that the person in question who uses the randomizer is still taking responsibility for their use of the randomizer, by it showing up in a quicknote sent by that user. Sending text as another user is not only of defamation of that users character, it's also cowardly. Take responsibility for what you say, or don't say it at all.
I just don't think you can go down the offensive or fraudulent route for banning fake qn's with randomized messages as they are. The biggest thing i've seen is how they are abused, but who defines that? It just all gets into ridiculous territory it need not get into when it all comes down to - if you don't like it, ignore it as suggested on the site homepage? If they don't agree with now, they need to change it.
There is no question who sends a fake qn. There's no doubt, it's easily discernible. And, people are doing the fake qn's about you. I usually just do them amongst my friends. We do them to each other. We laugh about it. I just don't pick some jackass from the log in list and say, "Hmm, let me impersonate them." Nobody does that for the most part. I just know, if you are offended by a fake qn i send on your behalf, should I not be offended if you have me sticking my head up a bear's ass? Each are easy to figure out who the author was.
Well said, Well said, well said about the randamiser thing. I know a person's log in message was saying as, x and y are making in a table and do you want a room for that? but, he himself may not be knowing to whom the randamiser is going to attacked. such as, many many log in and log off messages and percent F percent M commands will hit the unknown zoner. but as per this fake qn's, we play only with our well known friends and we are sure that this is on behalf of this person and attacking this particular person. but as per the randamiser, he or she may be knowing it only after his or her messages are being delivered to the site.
so in such case, whether the randamiser users are also going to get banned? or, will you be removing the randamiser commands?
Go go freedom of speech....
Most of the time, fake QN's aren't even done with the intention to "attack". I'm sure, if one would to go through QN history and dig up as many fake QN's as one can (I'm not suggesting anyone should, that'd take yonks), one would find very few impersonations of "real" users, and that seems to be the point missed in most of this.
Make this your opportunity not to just speak about Fake QN's, but to voice your opinion of free speech and the role of what censorship on the Zone should be.
kai, dave, stevo and others, i totally agree with everything you are saying. i never posted a topic about this because i couldn't manage to say all of this and make sense. but i too amm starting to think that this place will end up with people being careful of whatever they're saying not to be banned, freedom of speech could go to hell while it was the thing that attracted me and i'm sure alot of other people to this site, and the line in the homepage that was one of the main reasons why many people decided to join this site will have to go and be replaced with exactly the opposite...
freedom is what keeps alot of people here, and it would be sad if because of a few people complaining it had to go. complainers were usually directed to the ignore feature if they didn't like what was said, now what or who changed this?
we start with fake qn's, and then someone could complain about sex talking and that will be banned too, and then swearing, and who knows, maybe a small group of religious fanatics will complain that people of other religions on this site are refusing to be converted and all these people will be banned unless they change their religion?
Hello, I am neither for or against all of this accept somewhere in the middle. I must say the members on this site have not been asked on what they thought or felt on the rules on fake qn's. They do look a bit real though especially when you aren't used to them and aren't expecting them. Jaws says it very realistically and people don't look at each and every quick note. Okay, it's done in fun, but it can be anoying and confusing to people or new people for that matter. For example, I wouldn't like it if someone thought I said something which I did not, it was a fake qn in other words. Freedom of speech for me is the right to agree or disagree with any topic discussed. That's the long and sweet of it.
OK, folks, I'm going to put in my 2¢. The first amendment to the Constitution should apply here, as Ray stated in post 2. These restrictions should be repealed immediately.
I feel they should not be banned.
If you happen to be logged in and people are posting fake QN's, if they're something awful and offensive and you take notice, you review them.
"You don't review every quicknote"
Great point! If a fake QN is mondain enough not to attract your notice, what's the harm? If it is something outstanding, as I saidk you go back and review it.
With common sense, a user could pick out offensive fake QN's. No need to ban them.
Though it is a little pointless to send them, what's the harm? Let them have their fun.
The world is full of over sensative people anyway.
Viva le revolution!
agreed kia.
I am personally against fake quicknotes. They can get very annoying, and as one said regarding the sheer number of people posting them, and the number of fake QN's posted, people against them or annoyed with them would have to start ignoring a lot of people who might otherwise be good people. People should post as themselves.
However, since the people in support of this fake quicknote business currently outweigh the people against it, and if the admins do decide to not ban fake quicknotes, my suggestion would be that every message from a person should be linked to their profile, and not just an ignore link, as some people have the ignore links off. If the person faking the quicknote uses a feature which currently disables the link to their profile, and the reader has ignore links off, without inspection of the quicknote in detail, the reader would not necessarily know who the real person was. Now, if this ban were to go into effect, or even if it were not, I feel that all messages sent by a user should link to their profile, including the use of the /me command. This should make it easier for viewers to discern who the actual sender is.
With post 24, that brings the total to 10-4 in favor of allowing fake qn's to remain legal. 10 out of 14 is like 70% or something. Poli Sci major here.
I agree with in limits Kai.
the fake qn's are annoying but i don't think they brake the terms. i just ignore them, move passed.
i don't put the people on ignore.
the rules are broken in diffrent ways but unless it really effects the zone as a whole so what?
unless very afensive to one user or illegal.
if we got pissey at every thing we don't like at the zone then the zone would die.
Exactly. another thing that's lost in this - surely, surely, we're big enough to ignore something if it annoys us. We shouldn't even need the ignore feature for that. Oh wait, I'm forgetting some people seem incapable of being the bigger person...
I agree with nick. I don't like the fake QNS either, it's anoying to have someone doing that, and I have to keep checking to see if the things are real? no way!
I agree with post 25. Putting the link with an asterisk before it would help identify the sender. Furthermore, links are underlined in usually blue or red. Your screen reader (jaw, window eyes, hal, NVDA) should have a command which reports the font atributes. If the name is underlined, then that is an original message. In jaws (at least i know it happens) you can set it up so that you get atributes automatically if you feel too lazy to "check" the originality of a quicknote. Either this, or some completely different system would be implemented. The problem too is with the sounds. I remember when people would be able to give any kind of sounds out to the public quicknotes. So, if this would ahve been the case, this situation would be even more aggrabated if for instance, someone fakes a system message and embeds the URL with html to play a system sound (assuming this person has the sound elsewhere or knows its location on the zone). Those who are able to see have a clearly distinct advantage: They know when a quicknote is original by looking at it. I believe the font reporting command is the better way to check. If we put a heading instead, or some other for of object the verifiability of the quicknote may perhaps be more difficult. This complaint though, is makng things harder for everyone. First the admins must keep track of when was the message sent, by whom and to what degree should it be "dealt with". Others are limited on what they can do in the zone and ... it is just going to be from bad to worse in my opinion. if you are sick of these quicknotes, then find a system that works for you like that of the atribute checking. Takes just a keystroke, or some minimal settings.
Wow! this is like a fight in the school yard. Adults fighting over something which is so petty.
Fake qn could be considered falsifying system messages, as the link is the system's way of alerting you as to who is posting.
Fun? This is surely questionable. Things are fun until they are done to death. The volume of fake qn is incredible, and so it's boring. These were banned not to make every single one disappear, but to make the volume drop to the level at which if done occasionally the fun would return. Those who were really good and funny with it could shine through. Even the randomized substitutions are at times over used, but no more to the extent that fake qn are posted, and yes that reaches a point where it is no longer fun either.
I think you would find that if you took this back down to a rare and humorous occasional qn, almost noone would complain, and we could once more return to our usual standard of existance here.
Fun is a subjective thing Kev. What is fun to me, may not be to you. What is overdone to me, may not be to you. The thing about this place til now, we didn't need an arbitrator to decide who was right. Who decides what is too much or not too much? Why can't people regulate themselves or regulate for themselves what they do or do not want to see? Thing is, you will probably bitch about the qn's as well if they are still allowed, more power to you. But, that would be petty too right?
Who gets to determine "too much?" I mean if a few are allowed,, then who determines when a few becomes too many? This whole thing is rediculous. It is clearly sensorship, and I disagree with that.
For Nick and others, it is totally easy to determine the fake qn's from the real. And it does not take that big of an effort. As for intension, whenever I have public qn's on, the fake qn's I have participated in and seen are purely fun. Two people kidding each other. I have never seen it done in a truly offensive way, picking on someone who does not pick right back.
I don't generally put people on ignore. When I get sick of the public qn conversation, I simply turn publics off and concentrate on reading the boards or playing games. It's just not that big of a deal folks. Please, let's not allow more sensorship on this site.
Just for the record, I'm posting this in my personal capasity, and not as part of the staff of the Zone.
And btw, I think we have to make a clear distinction between fake system messages, and fake qn's.
I am 100% for the freedom of speech.
As for fake system messages, I say that we cannot allow them, for a multitude of obvious reasons.
As for fake qn's, I agree that it could be fun if someone tricked someone else with it every now and again.
However, it is also true that some of these fake qn's get rather annoying sometimes.
Having said that, I really would not want to ban someone for posting a fake qn.
This is petty, and, there are much worse offenses that happen from time to time.
My personal point of view would be that, if someone gets annoyed with all the fake qn's, then they should use the ignore feature.
However: I am aware of the fact that some people moan and bitch about the ignore feature as well, for various reasons.
For me personally, if a qn looks suspicious to me, I look at it closely. If I don't pick something up, I let it go. I mean, really: I'm not going to take each and every qn that's posted, and review it for all sorts of offences.
Now please allow me to complete the rest of my post in my capasity as cl here on the Zone.
I'm trusted with a job. The people who trust me with it, expect me to do my best in each and every situation, no matter what.
The day I accepted the cl position here on the zone, I knew what was expected of me, and whether I like it or not, I have committed myself to it, and I have to do it, even though it's not easy a lot of times.
For some reason, some people have labelled me as this vicious cl with a banning fettish after I disabled Hope's account.
What happened there, is a different story, a story I'm prepared to share with those interested. However, this is not the time and place for that.
wow kev well said. the things people get there panties in a bunch about. The qn thing does get a bit annoying at times. once in a while, yeah, it was funny. some people just take it way over board! it's not that big of a deal. the site doesn't want them, so be it. They run the site, they program the site, they moderate the site. they sure don't have to ask us every time they make a little rule or not! This is a petty thing. We have much worse things in life to worry about!
Agreed with Shey this site isn't a democracy. If you want a site where the inmates run the asylum and every user gets a say reguardless of weather they are intelligent and sensible enough to make in informed dicision go create your own version of the zone.
I am one of the people who agree with the notions surrounding Quinten (which he stated in post 34). That case was an example of a CL not seeing both sides of the argument, and therefore, a wrongful banning.
but again, it is also a form of sensorship, with the whole fake QN thing. Most of us do it for fun, never against one another. I understand system messages, but the whole fake QN thing is just rediculiss
I have to agree with Becky and the majority of users on this one. I don't see what the big deal is... Fake qns are fun and easy to skip if you're not into that. Have you noticed that the people who don't like them are the ones who aren't involved in the fun? And you can easily tell who sent the fake qn because they were the last person to send a qn of their own. As far as I've seen, fake qns have been sent from users who are aquainted with each other over the site and can have a good laugh at them. I have mistaken plenty of fake qns as real ones and have been able to laugh at myself afterwords. I guess I see fake qns as a means to a laugh now and then. This board topic won't probably change anything but it was good on you for writing it, Kai. Next thing you know, people will start complaining about the "you see" at the end of sentences and there will be a "you see" term to agree with. hehehe One more thing I have to say before I post this. Life is made up of mostly little things. Little amusements, little events, little delights and little disappointments. It is the little things that leads to big things and saying that we have problems because we care about such trivial things is completely wrong in my oppinion. I'm not that good at explaining myself so I'm sure many of you can put what I'm trying to say in a better way but it is the little things that matter and fake qns are one of those little things that makes the zone the zone!
Thanks for reading.
Michelle
lol michelle, you see.
I am going to insist that Michelle be banned for saying you see, you see. Good post Michelle.
ahum, you see, the aforementoned term deals with language ussage, just like do other tings. Quicknotes are a form of communication. As "you can see", communication is different from language, even though, you see, language is a form of communication. Oh well. I do agree though that this is some really small to just worry about and make a whole fuzz of it.
agreed with michelle and the rest. this place is starting to get ridiculous..but whatever
I can't believe this has came this far. fake qn's are no big deal, I do it to joseph and dave, my friends because its funny, and they laugh about it. We don't do it to people we don't no to be rude or offend anyone, what is there to complain about? if you don't believe a qn is real, check, if you don't feel like dealing with it, ignore the senders of them, you no? Come on, people. this is childish, and that's pretty bad if me, a 15 year old has to tell you guys that.
Sure the fake QN thing gets really annoying sometimes, but heck so are lots of other things. I don't see a reason for banning them. Its just harmless fun for the people that do them. I've done them before and while I agree it loses a lot of its funny when its done over and over and over it still doesn't seem right to make them against the rules altogether. But that's just me.
let's see... board posts are like QN's. hundreds of them are posted a day. are we gonna get rid of them too?
All this chaos over fake qns? Damn!!
I do agree with Kev's post. The fake qns were funny to a point, until they became excessive. Then they crossed the line from being funny to being stupid. If they weren't abused by a select group of people, this discussion might not have to take place. It's not that difficult to use something within reason.
While I find the fake QNs personally to be a pain in the ass, or lest I offend someone I'll call it annoying, this is by no means "petty".
If this is about misunderstanding or trickery, let's take the newly joined zoner, who upon there first log in, sees something about them masturbating with a carrot, making out behind a blackjack table, being pissed on by a dog, or any number of other random actions. This new zoner will usually be confused, and in some cases, offended and upset. When this new zoner says something about it, they are told to "fuck off", to "use the ignore feature if you don't like it", or "it's the randomizer, get used to it."
Clearly on the zone's front page, is a statement that freedom of speech is allowed, and that the zone's staff is not there to parent, so one might expect to find a wide variety of content within the site. Also, mentioned in this same section of the front page, is the fact that offensive content can be ignored, and that you should "make your own decisions as to what you view as acceptable".
I think that if this site is going to change to the role of heavy moderation, or "parenting", then new rules, new content, all these things need to be established.
Clearly this is a labor of love for the people who own this site, and they do have the right to do with it what they wish, but if it is not to be community driven, but driven by a select few , then notice should be given to that affect.
Kai, well-written post, and I agree with all said in it.
lmao everests sarah, well said. will you be banning me for calling you as everests sarah? hmmmmmmm?
If this is permitted again, I just hope that I'm never put on ignore by anybody because of something that I was made to say in a fake qn. If I'm going to be ignored, I want it to be for something I am personally responsible for. I also think that if this were to happen, then the user who sent the fake qn and caused any grievance between another user and me should be temporarily banned.
Fake qn's are annoying to me, but I don't think they should be banned. Also, this post will keep present in the minds of those who send them that they shouldn't overdo it.
That's all.
About the fake quick notes:About the quick notes:
Isn's that what the ignore feature is there for? If they do not like it, then they should turn off public quick notes.
Whether people think the issue is a big deal or not doesn't really matter to me. For me, I was just glad to get people on the record in how they feel in issues like this and just to put it out there so people know how the community really feels about it. That's what the boards are for, discussing issues. We've had over 400 views of this board within a 24 hour period, so it did catch some interest. About 30 different users stated there opinion on the new Fake QN rule. I didn't really count Q's vote because I wanted a tally of non-cl's or admins. He seemed to support keeping them legal though and would have made the margin wider.
A lot of people really hedged on it as well. Some people said they didn't mind it if it wasn't abused, but some never really defined what abused is. Based on the discussion though, I divided the posters into 2 camps. The first camp, the overwhelming majority, had 19 users supporting keeping Fake QN's allowable. In the second camp, 10 users clearly indicated some sort of opposition to fake QN's and supported the new rule. The list of where each user fell is listed below. If you think you were inaccurately placed in the wrong camp, please do correct me.
It is interesting to note the 7 out of the 19 people who support allowing fake qn's are in the top 25 all-time QN posters list. 1 out of the 10 supporting the fake QN ban is in the top 25 all-time QN posters list. This tells me, anyway, that most of the regular contributors to public quicknotes here support allowing them to remain legal.
Finally, I know this is not a democracy here, but you cannot just totally ignore the overwhelming majority and sentiment when they say something. It would be like if you were to host a party and wanted to have a particular theme, but only a few people wanted that and most people just wanted something else. If you don't listen to what your party guests want, it will most likely be a boring party. You might ruin the party because you are set in having it your way simply because it's "your party".
Without further adieu, here is where you stand. You might be shocked in the company you are keeping and agreeing with lol:
The "I take the zone's front page at their word and don't need a parent" supporters:
19 Users Feel the new rule is unnecessary and think we should be able to monitor something like this on our own:
Wraith
AZN guy
Raaj
Valhalla
Stevo
Who'surdaddy?
the worst
HauntedReverie
Supernover
Twkav (Can't believe he is on the right side of an issue lol)
Game of Viciousness
Hisenthusiasticlova
BabyGurlJ
LibraLady
RissaRose
KottonKandi
SilkySarah
Raskolnikov
Alleigh
The "I need a parent" supporters:
10 users seemed to clearly indicate support of new rule:
Nick6489
SingerOfSongs
Louisa
Louiano
Shea
Roman Battle Mask
BlackBird (come on Mr. "I got 100+ people ignoring me so ignore me if you don't like me", you're better than that!)
Brooke
Gilman Gal
Adam M.
ooo! I loved how you did this Dave! *stands proudly with the annoying zoners who knitpick over these oh so tiny issues! I am weird, you see... ...
Lmao Dave, include me in the "I don't need a parent" category. I'm for the fake qn's, only because they're much less anoying than people bitching about their prohibition over said qn's. Evry other argument of mine has been stated previously, including the fact that this should not, by any means, be a bannable offense. It would also be nice if they had a poll for it.
lmao dave, well said
okay, I kno I said I wasn't gonna say anything about this but I've changed my mind. First, I want to make it clear that I am not against the idea, no am I for it either, but I will say what I feel needs to be said. All this bitching about fake qn's is pointless. I mean, we've all got better things to do with our time (ore we should) than come in here and start bitching about something as stupid and as unimportant as a little quick note. That to me is just childish and wasteful of time that can be better spent actually talking and (heaven forbid) getting to kno people and having fun with each other. however, their is a point where you have to draw the line and say something is taken way out of hand, when you can clearly see that it's starting to piss people of, and you get asked to stop doing it. Maybe not for ever, but at least for an hour or so. just long enough for people to have a break from it, and long enough for it not to be anoying anymore. Yes, rules are put in place for a reason, and yes, rules shouldn't be broken, nor should they be abused either. Things like system messages are their for a reason, and if people start making fake ones, how are we going to be able to tell wich is real and wich is not? I mean, sure we have the sound that tells us their is one, but if you think about it, it's not always reliable. Take for an example, you get a private qn and a system message is sent at the same time, how are you ment to know? Also keep in mind, not all of us kno all the fancy ways to read or pick up things like that with our screen readers either.
Somewhere in between, in the middle of the darkness and the light, all I can see is the hazy gray between the black and white ...
Oh wait, this isn't a board for singing, and darn, Eloquence doesn't sing too well, but ... uh, how 'bout them Raiders? LOL, no, I don't really like football. But seriously, this topic is ... well, uh, at the risk of reiterating, or being repetitive, or redundantly redundant (that statement is redundant within itself), ... darn, I forgot what I was going to say. Oh yeah. This topic is a waste of time. I think we should debate something more useful than fake QN's. LOL. You could always turn public QN's off, and talk to whoever you wanna talk to via the private QN feature ... right, right, right? Smrt! I mean, smart!
As for fake qn's, the same thing applys. Think about it, what would you think if you were a new user and had only just loged in for the very first time and saw a fake qn saying that you did something or said something that you didn't, would you come back after that first impreshon? Yeah, the sight is driven by it's members or should be, but we also have community leaders for a reason, and they have a job to do as well. Us bitching about little things to them all the time would put a lot of pressure on them, and sure, the ignore link is their, but just putting someone on ignore for a little note, to me is the dumbest thing ever. Yes, it is so you can ignore someone if you like, but, isn't that abusing that feature as well? Isn't the point of coming here to make new friends, and to have fun, or am I just in a fantasy world of my own. What's the point of coming here if you have to ignore everyone on the sight, or turn off public qn's all the time. We all get anoyd about something, and if we didn't we wouldn't be human, but, why act like school children when a rule is put inplace for a reason. Okay, so some people like to complain about little things like if the randomizer gets them doing something they normally wouldn't do, but that's just the way people are. I mean, if someone wasto thretten harm on you, then sure, you have the right to complain, and that's yours to have, but in the end, it's something that you and the other person who sed it's business to work ou. Like I said, I'm not for nor against the banning of fake qn's, but in the end it's the decition of the admins, and like it or not, we'll all just have to except the decition that they make. Before anyone starts jumping up and down, just think about what you'd do if:
you were seeing the zone for the first time,
if you were a community leader being pelted with dozens of complaints a day, and if you were the one being targetted in the fake qn's (not being from one of your friends but from someone who wasn't) That's my appinion, like it or not.
Oh, it's been implemented already.
So, this is why this topic is a waste of time.
hahaha, liz, it clearly showes that you are in favour of cl's and their pressure and their ...
As you said, the school students thing, I feel only the rules and the restrictions are treating us as a school students. instead of making it as a rule, why not they send notifications now and then like in all the lists the moderators are doing? I feel they can send us friendly notifications/circulars now and then and I hope that could be more than enough for adult kids.
If you say that you wana be friendly with all the zoners with out ignoring and with out turning off your publicks, why not you skip some qn's which you don't like? and if you can't do that, I do say, we all cannot be at your taste. We all may be having different likings and diferent different unlikings too. so if you don't like it, just either ignore them or skip their qn's. Even i may not be liking some of your topics too. but so far did I lodge any complaint against you to the CL's?
And as per your point of new comers, do you think this randamiser attacks are acceptable to them?
As per your point of CL's, they have accepted and commited to work as a CL's and they do know pritty well that these sort of complaints and difference of opinions will take place. and if they aint ready to face that, they have to take their own decision, you see.
Grrr. I want to ban Raaj for being so offensive. He keeps saying "You see". Doesn't he know we're on a web site where the majority of people cannot see? Damn it.
lmao allie, my you see is accessible you see, you see. can't you see with your hands? fingures? hmmmm?
No, I do not see with my fingers. I feel with my fingers, you feel.
Raaj, you offend me, you feel.
ROFL. I have to admit "you see" sounds better, you feel.
oi allie, as per the blind, feeling has to be treated as seeing, you see. got it? hmmmm?
With regard to the falsifying of quick notes I must start by saying that under the law this can be considered defamation of character and impersonation of an individual without his or her consent written oral or otherwise. It is because of the fact that I hereby stand with the motion put forth by the administrative staff of this site. While falsifying quick notes may be done out of fun and games there are clearly members who are bothered by the fact regardless of the fact that we have certain members who have showed that they would like them back I agree that they should stay as they are and that members should not be permitted to send quick notes that represent that they are from another member.
As outlined here, this could be called defamation of character.
Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.
Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements, known as LIBEL, and spoken statements, called slander.
The probability that a plaintiff will recover damages in a defamation suit depends largely on whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure in the eyes of the law. The public figure law of defamation was first delineated in NEW YORK TIMES V. SULLIVAN, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). In Sullivan, the plaintiff, a police official, claimed that false allegations about him appeared in the New York Times, and sued the newspaper for libel. The Supreme Court balanced the plaintiff's interest in preserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom of expression in the area of political debate. It held that a public official alleging libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The Court declared that the First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false.
Where the plaintiff in a defamation action is a private citizen who is not in the public eye, the law extends a lesser degree of constitutional protection to defamatory statements. Public figures voluntarily place themselves in a position that invites close scrutiny, whereas private citizens who have not entered public life do not relinquish their interest in protecting their reputation. In addition, public figures have greater access to the means to publicly counteract false statements about them. For these reasons, a private citizen's reputation and privacy interests tend to outweigh free speech considerations and deserve greater protection from the courts. (See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 [1974]).
Distinguishing between public and private figures for the purposes of defamation law is sometimes difficult. For an individual to be considered a public figure in all situations, the person's name must be so familiar as to be a household word—for example, Michael Jordan. Because most people do not fit into that category of notoriety, the Court recognized the limited-purpose public figure, who is voluntarily injected into a public controversy and becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. Limited-purpose public figures, like public figures, have at least temporary access to the means to counteract false statements about them. They also voluntarily place themselves in the public eye and consequently relinquish some of their privacy rights. For these reasons, false statements about limited-purpose public figures that relate to the public controversies in which those figures are involved are not considered defamatory unless they meet the actual-malice test set forth in Sullivan.
Determining who is a limited-purpose public figure can also be problematic. In Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 96 S. Ct. 958, 47 L. Ed. 2d 154 (1976), the Court held that the plaintiff, a prominent socialite involved in a scandalous Divorce, was not a public figure because her divorce was not a public controversy and because she had not voluntarily involved herself in a public controversy. The Court recognized that the divorce was newsworthy, but drew a distinction between matters of public interest and matters of public controversy. In Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 99 S. Ct. 2675, 61 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1979), the Court determined that a scientist whose federally supported research was ridiculed as wasteful by Senator William Proxmire was not a limited-purpose public figure because he had not sought public scrutiny in order to influence others on a matter of public controversy, and was not otherwise well-known.
Raaj, I did not! say I was clearly for the cl's, nor did I say I wasn't. I was trying to put across a general pointe of view. I was trying to give a non-biest appinion, and you just turned it around and atact me because of it. It's people like you that stopped me from saying anything in the first place. Your the one acting like a school child if you choose to atack someone for having an appinion that you don't like or agree with. Maybe you should think about it from both sides and not just because you want to keep doing it. Maybe you should think about thoes people who don't kno computers that well, who don't kno all the fancy ways to work their screen readers, or simply just don't have the time to check every qn they get.
first of all, as per my opinion, those who are not able to come to a decision whether this is correct and this is incorrect, they are not suppose to have any count anywhere, you see. In another words, I can even say, they are not brave enough to say what they got with their mind. So in such case, liz, you are a feeding bottle as per my count, not even a school student.
And for your information, even if you are bold enough to say that you are against the fake qn's, we don't mind about it. we are sure that we are having majority for democratic zone. and we do hope that we'll be still getting majority in the future.
Raaj.
Add me to the "I do not need a parent list"
They ban these things, what's next, the randomizer!! I have been on here for about two years now and I have never seen anyone sending fake QNs.
I find it remarkably disheartening that people can deem any amount of discussion, debate, or other form of argument against an eventuality, whether personal or public as "bitching", classifying anything that might challenge their view and/or comprehension. If this is the case, folks, then we -- none of us -- should be allowed the right to contest in a court of law, since that'd be bitching. We shouldn't be allowed to report abuse to the CL's, since that'd be bitching. We shouldn't be allowed to breathe, since the quality of air might cause us to "bitch."
Have those of you who deem this entire conversation pointless forgotten the premise of this post so quickly? I said firstly that, in my purported ability to influence the site with my opinion, I was volleying a complaint with regard to a decision which does not appeal to me. In the second, I stated that, while it is indeed their place to implement such rules and regulations as they desire, they should (A) clearly denote such rules instead of freely interpreting existing clauses not meant for that purpose and (B) at least consider the voice of the community members upon which these rules will impact. I attempted to set down clear examples of deviations between documented user rights and implied rights, and I fear that in this I have failed, if indeed so many of you can view my petition as naught but "bitching."
I respectfully agree that this is not my site to do with as I wish, nor am I in charge of the physical property which embodies the software responsible for the operation of this service, nor am I a contributing member to any system changes and updates. I also freely admit that the Zone Staff, whether administrative or otherwise retain the right to judge as they see fit, even to the extent of completely ignoring any views that might be put forth by the community, whether in part or as a whole. I furthermore concede that my rights to the First Amendment are not all-inclusive, and that so long as I am participating in a service governed by a private sector, they, in their own freedom, are permitted to both censor and control my activities and interactions on any site(s) they may operate.
I've never once advocated any disrespect for the Zone Staff, whether implied or explicitly expressed. I appreciate their responsibilities, accepting that their position requires them to enforce the rules, regulations, and limitations laid forth by the Terms of Service.
But, in this regard, I still feel strongly that they are attempting to uphold a non-existent restriction, electing to interpret the Terms of Service as they see fit, rather than as it is.
I respectfully disagree with the proposition that the link attached to a public quicknote could be categorized as a system message. This, to me, is an extreme stretch, and if indeed we're meant to believe this, let there also be a list of events which are classified as system alerts. Let there be no ambiguities or misunderstandings. The anchor tag attached to a public quicknote is clearly a demarcation, designating who is sending the message, and its very existence requires the conscious interaction of a zone user in order to come into existence. By this very regard, then, the anchor tag's status as a system message, in my view, is null and void.
I shan't attempt to address every grievance against my post nor any of the others who support me in this matter, but I might make the following observation: The Fox. By your dictum, posting lyrics on the zone should be illegal, since we have not garnered the proper licenses to use such material. Posting links to news stories and/or other resources owned and controlled by other individuals or corporations should be illegal, since we haven't obtained written and documentable permission to do so. Furthermore, many names used on here should be illegal, since they're either trademarked, copyrighted, or otherwise protected by property laws. Audio profiles containing any music which is not in the public domain should be removed, and furthermore, the person responsible for such an audio profile should be tried for miss use of property, especially where they're distributing an author's material without any royalties to the originator of said item.
The point of that rant is: You're clearly taking things way too far with your post about fraud and falsely impersonating another. If every breach of the laws, whether minuscule, assumed, or otherwise contestable were to be administered to with your apparent zeal, I'm quite sure that even you would be in prison for some accidental trespass.
I fully agree with the others on the point about randomized messages. I've seen some rather vulgar and suggestive randomly generated messages, implicating a random user's name. If such a message offended me, would I be within my right under this mentality to seek intervention from a community leader, then? Would they ban the individual who sent the quicknote? Would they tell me to put him/her on ignore? I leave that question for your pondering.
I understand many people misunderstand controversy of any type, misconstruing objective arguments as frivolity. They may in their own comprehension conceive their own notions about a proposed movement as both destructive and pointless, or "childish." But how many of you complained about the point system change? If you felt strongly about that event, and I know more than a few of you did, would you then feel offended if others had told you that it was their site to run as they wished? No, in fact, your opinions inspired the zone staff to carry a vote to determine the popular view on the future of the zone. Now that we're addressing an issue with regard to freedom of censorship, will you now also deny us that opportunity?
I'd like for you guys to, instead of being annoyed and thinking that we're just "bitching" about something, actually consider all the points that I and various other zone members have put to light. I was quite surprised, since a few of you who support the censorship of the zone are usually against censorship. Bluntly put: Quit reading this board as if it's drama, and read it for what it is: equal representation. If every struggle, whether big or small, frivolous or detrimental were classified as drama and thus to be avoided, you'd not have the country you live in, the air you breathe, the water you drink, the food you eat, the television programs you watch, and the list is endless.
Honestly. If the folk who did nothing but cuss and complain about the point system in a less than civil manner could get a vote, I feel that those of us striving for this decision to be reverse, who have argued our points sensibly and peacefully for the most part, should at least receive some consideration.
conclusively: If the zone is indeed member-driven, then I fully intend to take advantage of that provision, contending against any decisions which I fail to agree with, and applauding those that do appeal to me. By no means do I expect any of you to agree with me blindly, but I do urge you to consider the possibilities before passing judgement. If the case is in fact that the site is driven by administrative decisions, rather than member input, I'd request that this blatant bit of false advertising be removed, likewise with the non censorship statement.
Kai
Okay, let’s firstly cut out the personal attacks...
Secondly, I’m gonna add another two cents worth that’ll either cause a whole load of trouble or be overlooked completely, I really don’t care which eventuates.
There seem to be a group of people on this site who need things to be exactly to their liking, and are prepared to bitch and complain to the CL’s/Admins to get their way. So many people either have plenty of fun with the fake QN’s, or simply have no problem navigating past them. But there are others who get annoyed very quickly and will immediately ask for a ban on the things that annoy them, and this seems to be another one of those times.
There’s nothing wrong with lodging complaints to the CL’s, but this is where it’s up to the CL’s and Admins to decide which ones are worth taking more seriously than others. Somehow, it seems, they have decided that a bit of fun with fake QN’s IS a serious enough offense to have it banned. I hate to say it, but I must question the integrity of the person who bent over backwards to the will of these bitchers...
As far as I see this, some people get annoyed easily by fake QN’s and so want them banned for that reason. The arguments about new users getting confused easily, or defamation of character, don’t stand up as far as I’m concerned. There’s no difference between the fake QN’s and the randomiser as far as those things go, so people who want fake QN’s banned for that reason must be prepared to sacrifice the randomiser as well. Kai pretty much said it all in his previous post.
I must also add that most fake QN’s are sent as people such as “Hilary Clinton” or “Jack Daniels” - okay maybe not the last one, but you get the idea. If you need to stop and think to decide if usernames such as those exist, and they’re saying things you think are true, then in all seriousness, you shouldn’t have public quicknotes turned on at all. But of course, it’s your prerogative to do so, so don’t complain about what goes on there...
I could probably say more, but I don’t think I really need to. The main fact of the matter is that, as is said on the front page of the site, “we are not your parents.” People who get annoyed by fake QN’s have options to ignore them: Put the main offenders on ignore; turn public QN’s off; simply ignore them and focus on the parts of the conversation that are to your interest. But please, don’t attempt to control what the rest of us talk about.
All in favour of free speech, raise hands...
i totally agree with kai. if the site is indeed driven by its members, we should be able to voice dissatisfaction whenever we're well, dissatisfied. if you don't like the fake quick notes, use the ignore feature the site provides all of us or, use your mental one and simply skip over those bits of conversation. i do also agree with those who say the fony qn's are annoying but i just ignore them. surely, we all know that bill clinton doesn't really log in to the zone to copulate with a female member of the site so why make a big deal. it's very very simple logic to be able to discern which are real and which are not. to me, they're no different than getting paired up with a creepazoid for sex acts in someone's log-in message or getting killed, fondled or otherwise randomized into outlandish situations.
looking at the sheer sensical side of things, half of those who put out those qn's don't even know how to do them right...i've seen plenty of them that are so messed up, i've had to laugh at the attempt. so who's the bigger fool, the one who's making a huge deal over sensoring fake quick notes or the one who can't even do them right?
just my two cents,
danielle
Excellent Stevo. I am raising my han for free speech.
I have only a few points, and these are most likely recycled.
1. As system messages are easy to replicate accurately, I think this discussion should focus solely on the generation of fabricated quick notes.
2. These quick notes are annoying, misleading, offensive...but these and every other descriptive term put forth thus far are subjective words. What I deem offensive, annoying, etc, the next user may not; furthermore, after I have had a chance to wrap my brain around the activity, my opinion could change suddenly, thereby causing me to revoke whatever protestation or ban I had previously advocated, either directly or indirectly.
3. If any credence is to be lent to the "fraud" argument, I move that examples of severe misuse (I.E. in a slanderous or defamatory context) need to be cited somewhere herein; otherwise, I just don't see it.
4. This issue cannot be merely partially administrated. In other words, if some policy is indeed set forth definitively, the resulting ambiguity spawned by omission, intentional or otherwise, will always leave any rules open for interpretation. Therefore, the only fix is an all-encompassing one--no fake quick notes, period. I disagree with such a fix on the grounds that these quick notes bear similarities, and therefore exhibit all the action potential of, randomizer tricks that, in fact, have been given staff support in the form of additional substitutions and their outlining in the zone's news file and help system.
5. Alas, have we decided to eschew the ignore feature completely? And by ignore, I also mean filtration of those things that are thought to be undesirable. For example: tab will scroll you quickly past users' quick notes; actual links are underlined in blue; and, for the love of all things holy, if you see a quick note from someone that informs you your best friend went down on a duck in his backyard pool, and you know that no such thing transpired, press f-five.
Lastly, I agree wholeheartedly with those who suggest that this issue should be put to a community vote.
Jim
I agree with free speech!!
Everyone should keep in mind, that deep down, this isn't some stupid argument about fake qn's or no fake qn's, its an argument about free speech, which this sight supports. Or it claims it supports judging by the front page....
I would also like to point out that there are people that are anoyed with fake qn's and people that have complained to the extreme. No disrespect here, but we can't bow down to those who have to have everything there way. What would this show about the sight comunity and staff as a whole? Can't we actually discuss something rather than bitching about it? And if all you're going to do is bitch than consitter that this a is your chance to make your views known, who knows how many of those you will get. so how are you going to use it? Be productive in your arguments or bitch about something, complaining about it but makeing no argument with substance. I'm not going to listen to someone bitch and not provide any reason to do what there asking apart from"i think (problem) should be changed so change it!"
And I'm not saying that all of you are bitching on here, just makeing a point about bitching rather than giving a valid argument.
Keep in mind that you nay sayers are allowing free speech to be limited by fake qn's butalso by other potential things. Such as freedome to use what ever words you like or freedom to talk about what ever you see fit.
That's all I've got to say because K and others made my point for me.
o, and it is usually verry easy to figure out which qn is a real qn and which is fake
if you're in doubt, look for the word "link" before each qn. I'm not saying check every qn. use good judggement and decide which to check an which not to check.
and about the randomizer
My name was used in someones log in message the first day I was here. I wasn't affended at all and thought it was quite funny. learn how to take a joke because people don't know who the randomizer is going to pick or take it up with the person and ask for an appology. We're mature individuals right?
(please excuse the bad spelling and grammer, I got verry little sleep last night)
Well said, Queen Lioness Liz and Jmbauer.
Raaj, even if your posts had said something of value, you lost all credibility, at least it my mind, when you took it to the level of personal attacks. Whether you like it or not, everyone who's posted in this thread has an opinion. Maybe some are not specifically for or against this idea, but that doesn't make what they have to say any less important.
First, my opinions as a site administrator.
My desire is to create tools which will give users enough correct information so that they can make their own decisions and have the means to act on them. For example, it is important that users are able to identify the real sender of a quicknote, as well as the actual start and end of the quicknote text. Given this information the user can identify others who are sending fake quicknotes, and can then ignore any or all of those others as desired. As it stands a user could post a quicknote with something innocuous, a second fake innocuous action quicknote, and a third fake malicious action quicknote. Someone checking would be likely to assume that the person appearing to post the second quicknote was also guilty of posting the third. Since quicknotes are not meant to be anonymous, I believe that a user should be held responsible for the text that they send and that other users have a right to know who is sending each quicknote. If all fake quicknotes are meant in fun as many of these posts suggest, the lack of anonymity should not be an issue.
There are two types of quicknotes which are not system messages. One type includes a link to a user's profile, and some additional text. In this case the profile link is blue and the remainder of the quicknote is black. Users can not create their own links in quicknotes, and have no other way of making blue text, so it is possible to accurately identify the beginning of this type of quicknote. The second type of quicknote, which begins with an asterisk followed by text, is meant as an action. Currently all text in this type of quicknote is black so there is no way to accurately identify the beginning of the quicknote.
My proposed solution is to put the asterisks which identify action quicknotes and system messages in different colors, so that users can easily identify where a quicknote begins. With this in place, the beginning of a quicknote will either be a blue link or will be one or more asterisks in some other color. The ending of a quicknote will be identified either by the beginning of the next quicknote or by the box for sending a quicknote.
I believe that all screen readers offer the ability to distinguish colors. If this isn't the case, you should suggest that this feature is added. JAWS, for example, uses the insert+5 keystroke.
I welcome comments on this proposal, suggestions of appropriate colors, and anything else relating to this issue.
Now, my personal opinions, which you can feel free to ignore.
Blackbird, in post 31, does an excellent job of stating my views on fake quicknotes. If they aren't written to impersonate legitimate users, aren’t completely overdone, and are hopefully funny, I'm all for them. I believe that users should not create fake quicknotes which impersonate other site users, but I have no interest in monitoring all quicknotes to enforce this policy. I'd imagine that if I made monitoring a requirement for the community leaders, they'd all resign in short order.
Finally, thanks to Kai for creating this topic and keeping it relatively flame free, and to Dave for compiling all the data.
This is a solution that would work for me.
here is my take. fake qns are ok in moderation. not 24 7 365. now some people think just the reverse. I don't see a problem with it. it's quite fun if you ask me. now if people don't like it there is ignore. now that's all i have to say. sure it may be immature but who said we could not have fun on-line? sometimes having a little immature fun is quite relaxing. ok, i'm done. maybe impersonating system messages may cross the line.
Good post Kai. Very well said. As I've stated the other day, we should just have a vote on this whole thing and see how the table turns, as we did with the point system. We have the freedom of speach but where is it? I can't seem to find out cause everytime I turn around, people are ranting to the CL's and admins regarding what we say. Can we say contradiction?
I'm all for free speech too, but here's the point I'd like to make, it's all a matter of degree. If someone came on here, and someone else was being verbally abusive to them, I mean, *really* abusive to them, and you've tried to resolve the issue with the other person and they just keep it up, that's when I believe going to the leaders is the best thing to do. But all this about fakeQNs? Sure, it's annoying, but the way I see it you got 2 choices. you put the offending people on ignore until such time as you're able to calm down and the activity has stopped, or heaven forbid you close the browser and go find something else to do? I also think there are some people around here who only exist for the sake of creating drama so they can sit back and watch the fun. This is completely counterproductive to what the site is for. Half the time the issues really don't mean anything accept to the people involved. The points system change was a major blowup and now look, nobody complains about it anymore because...well, now people are complaining about another stupid issue that means nothing, fake qns. Re the randomizer...I think that when a new user signs up, they should be told that the randomizer exists, so that if they see their names in rather, shall we say interesting and unusual situations, or if they're being made to look like they said something they didn't actually say, at least they'll be made aware of it and can better understand what's going on. I know if I was a new user and that happened I think I would be really pissed off, I guess it all depends on the situation. The randomizer may be a lot of fun but it's also caused its own share of problems. I guess people like it enough to where if the feature was taken away, guess what would happen? You know it, another 20 hour argument would insue, and another 1000 thread topic on it would go up on the boards, I know this place, people. I've hung aroud here for about 4 years now. My point, and I do have one in short is, try to think about when to go to the CL's before you actually do it. These people do this because they love the site and aren't paid for it. I know based on what I've seen that it's a hard job and I applaud all the people who have to be in that job, I certainly don't envy them. In any case, just contact the CL's when no other course of action will work on something. These arguments about fake quicknotes and different site features being taken away *are* important and yes, people do have a wright to speak about the site if it's not working for them. But by virtue of the fact that you have to go to the site to log in, you're basically agreing to the terms of service. and if the TOS say not to do fake qN's, then Goddamn it, people, don't do fake qn's and everything will be fine. Just use common sense.
Another thing I don't get is when people do things that annoy others and they're asked to stop, it's like oh well fuck you, don't like it tough. Yet when you post things that annoy them it's oh I'm gonna report you to the CL's and shit. Respect works in a 2 way street not a one way street. Seriously, some people really need to grow up and get lives.
I think asterisks embedded within an anchor tag would be a splendid idea for messages prefaced by such characters. For system messages, the link would only need to refresh the page. For user log-ins/outs, maybe it could pull up their user profile, much as a user's linked name does?
If someone's really being that abusive to you, you're, how shall I say this, less than inept if you fail to put them on ignore. Either that, or you're either (A) a drama queen and want the hype, or (B) a glutten for punishment.
Kai
On my few weeks of being on the zone I've seen some real fake quick notes. I'm gathering that the ones I saw saying that Charles Manson has logged in and Ted Bundy is posting a message, and Adolph Hitler just logged out of zone by phone, I'm pretty sure none of these people are on the system. Now as counter productive as it could be I did check once or twice to see who was on line so I can then safely conclude with dead certainty that none of those people are here and further more they don't exist at least as a user on the zone. I haven't yet seen any messages on someone else's behalf or at their expense and I'm thinking that the reason could be that it's too easy to see who posted it in the first place. So be that as it may why not post that John F Kennedy user 382918283 has just logged in to zone by phone. As long as it's suppose to be silly then who cares. Hey it doesn't have to be funny. People sometimes write things to write things. Why would you care if you were band anyways? It's just some person's website. Big deal. You can say that we're a big community and what all but so what? We're a community on some guy's web page. This isn't the only game in town. Your little treasured community will find you where ever you go and if you're that worried about networking then exchange some pertinent info with the ones you wish to stay in touch with while you still can and that's it. Who cares about everyone else. They're just people on the other side of the world that would have nothing to do with you if it wasn't for the internet. Why do you care if you're banished from them? People get kicked from websites everyday for any reason. Look: I go on this thing called palrtalk sometimes and you should see how many trigger happy room admins there are. Some of them I knew personally and they've still kicked me out of their little clicks but so what of it. When people get some control and get some power they use it. How's that any surprise. So people do it here too. Just be thankful you're not being band. Be glad you get to watch it and that it isn't you. Where else could you do that? In real life if someone got shot or something and you saw it you can't just walk away from it after watching it. Well look this is one of many places where you can. So just do what I do. I'm a new user and I'm grateful that I can sit here and watch everything unfold. Be glad you're able to get on these boards and make your comments. Someone who gets band can't. So laugh at them at least it's not you and you'll see them again. You know how many people get knocked from myspace and they come back? Big deal so let's say your friend Jo is band, maybe he'll come back later as Bill. That's not so bad. Look in real life if you fuck up, you take many chances trying to start fresh and not have others trail you. On the web, you just change your name. Hey at least this way you don't have the feds, or Interpol after you should you flee the country. Here you fuck up, you come back as someone else. Don't even tell me that doesn't happen. Just reading some of the stuff in the T.O.S. tells me it's a problem around here. Obviously if people have a need to make several accounts and make ones for others, yeah it's a problem. It's all in the T.O.S. I ain't making it up. So don't worry about your friends. I'm sure they'll know why their band and they'll be back. Take it easy
capieech?
wow rodge, just because those of us that don't really care if they ban it or not, that sure doesn't mean were afraid to speak our minds. In fact, if you go and look at any board post i have maid, i speak my mind, i don't care if you are my friend or not, and like what i say or not. i'm going to tell you how i feel. However, On this instance, i don't really care either way. i just think everytime the cl's or admins make a decision, it's they didn't ask us first. I never have seen anywhere in the terms that say there abliged to. Again, i could care less if they keep it or don't. it don't bother me either way. they do get annoying after it's kept up for a while. but i can ignore that. so yeah, whatever the staff decides, i could care less.
Well, when I left for work this morning, I still had the tally at 20-10. I am not going to continue the tally though after tonight as I think it's pretty clear by today's posts that people contine to support the ability to use fake qn's, at least in some form. Even in some of the opposition to them, the strongest opinion you get often is, "I really don't care one way or another what happens!" Obviously, you do though if you are visiting the board in the first place. I mean, I never post on the boards, but I decided to when this issue arose. So, if you think this is a waste of time and stupid, why are you even bothering reading it and replying to it? The fact is, obviously by the number of posts, the issue has interest to say the least and people do have strong feelings about it.
I have been trying to keep my arguments about my position factually based in general. I don't pretend to hide my bias in what I support. Many of the arguments against the qn's I really find are just disingenuous. I mean, you're opposition to our ability to post fake qn's is not based in falsification law or what the Supreme Court said back in 1914 about them when computers didn't even fucking exist. I exaggerate there, but you get my point. I mean, let's be real about it. I also don't believe that one person who has voiced their support for the ban has ever been viciously or maliciously attacked in their use. And, if you were, I'd myself support the person sending those QN's in being banned. They haven't been used that way. It's mostly been among friends.
I tend to believe more the opposition for the Fakes come from the simple annoyance factor, if people are to be honest and many people have been. I believe people when they say they don't find them funny or they are overdone. I just think that if you ban something based on these factors, you open yourself up to people complaining about anything. And why wouldn't they think they'd be successful after this?
It isn't even a question about how many people find them annoying or not funny or whatever else. It's been broken down for you here to see for yourself. Of about 40 users that have chimed in, those who want to see them remain allowable holds steady at about 67% with 27 users. That's a fact we've seen over the last two days. I have no doubt that would hold true in a vote if it were to occur. The fact is, by the numbers we've seen, credence is given to the argument that the complaints of a few have ruined it for the masses. It's irrefutable. Like I pointed out last night, the all time top quicknote regular posters predominantly support the ability for users to engage these QN's. And, the fact is, if it remains in effect as is, the perception the community has about the decision will be well grounded in it's opinion that a small minority ruined it for most based just on this kind of response in this board.
If you uphold the rule based on it's not funny any more or it's overdone, then you should be prepared to legislate what funny is and what is overdone. The funny thing I read here is when people say they support freedom of speech and expression. It's funny because they apply that "principle" when it applies to their convenience and their opinion. They apply it when it's in agreement with what they find funny or they find acceptable. I can honestly say for myself, I've not asked for anything to be outlawed or banned that I don't agree with on here and I am sure I can think of plenty things I don't like. Can you honestly say that for yourself?
This will most likely be my last post on the topic because it would be silly to keep blasting on about it. Afterall, the point has been clearly made and it's plainly there for all to see or ignore. The ball now is in management's court. I am glad to see they are paying attention to the discussion. I do appreciate our ability to, at least, voice these kinds of concerns. And, I'm sure I'll be out here again if another scenario should arise lol. Dave
hello all,
I want to give my opinion on this topic of fake qn's. I have read also, in the terms of service that this site is geared for freedom of speach, and that the admins/cl's are not your parents. If this is so, why are these rules and regulations being placed upon us, as zone members, some of whom pay for this site with their premium memberships to keep it going? It is my opinion that fake qn's are not harming anyone on this site. I think there are quite a few people who would agree with this statement. Sure, there are some people who get annoyed by such posts, and I do understand this fact, however, there are much more offensive things which are posted as quicknotes than fake qn's such as sexual stuff that is posted pretty much every day. Now, I'm not at all saying that should be banned because again, this is freedom of speach, what I am trying to say is that fake qn's are far less harmless than things which can be posted out here as qn's. I think these rules are really dictatorial and a breach of the original terms of service. This is not a site of sensorship. If those people who are annoyed by fake qn's have a big problem, these are their options:
1: turn off public qn's until it dies down a bit, as most things generally do on the zone.
2: log off the site until things calm down
3: ignore the user who is doing the fake qn if it bothers you that badly.
Those, are the options which people who don't like the fake qn thing can do. Thanks again.
Greg
Dave, for the most part your points are well made, and very interesting, but you don't have to be bothered particularly one way or the other for the arguement, to enjoy reading the way people express their views, to watchthe ebb and flow, and even to have it potentially change your own opinion by reading it. Please don't tell us not to bother coming back and reading if we're not interested in saying if we want it banned or not, that just takes away slightly from the intellegent way you've presented your views, and evaluation of the discussion.
I for example, hadn't really considered how this could be compaired to the randomizer, I also believe at times that is way over used, and becomes as boring, however don't wish it to be banned. So, I guess I now have to say that while fake system messages should be, fake qn shouldn't. I'd still say however, please lets try and moderate such things so that they are funny, and so can be enjoyed by more people, After all, most of the users doing this are adults and should be able to see the value in such a suggestion.
All the points I've read since my last post are very well said, and I'm not even going to argue with them, but I do have a question though (even though it has nothing to do with the topic). In regards to the text stuff on here, what if you don't kno or can't see the screen to see all the different couloured writings of the sight? I mean, talking about coulours of text is okay for thoes of us who have some sort of sight, but how can someone who's never seen tell what colour is what, to tell a screen reader what to look for? Like I said I kno it doesn't really have anything to do with the topic, but it was something that Chris N mentioned in his post that got me thinking about it. Back to the subject.....I just want to make one thing clear if I haven't already, and that is, that I'm all for freedom of speech, but we all need to stop and think of other users on the sight as well. Like it or not, we do have (not pointing fingers or trying to atack anyone) oversensitive people on here, and let's face it, sometimes we all don't come on here in a good mood ourselves cause of something that has happened in our lives and things will get to us easier. If you say that you always come on here happy and in a good mood, then either your lying to yourself or your not human. Okay, so fake qn's between friends is funny, but even a joke stops being funny after a while. Even I myself can take a joke if it's funny, but after a while it looses it's humour and just becomes plain anoying. Yes, all the options to ignore them are their for a reason, but then the question becomes, when is it abusing them, and when is it not?
Kev, I have to post again to correct you. What I said was this:
So, if you think this is a waste of time and stupid, why are you even bothering reading it and replying to it?
I'm asking a question. People can do whatever they want for sure, but I ask out of curiosity for sure. I am suggesting though by the queston, that many people do actually care and that's why they are reading.
Hasn't anyone paid attention to what Chris N said?
He suggested making the messages different colors. Doesn't anyone have anything to say about that solution? It would work, wouldn't it?
Case closed.
i didn't red it because what it was about, i read it because it was kai, and i like to read the way he words things. And i replied because, yeah, i felt like voicing my opinion. lol what kind of quetsion is that anyway/ hehehehe
yep yep. feel the color, and as per the blind dictionary, see the colors with the help of your screen readers and get over it....
People will still complain. Nick64 (I think that's the name) said he didn't want to have to work at figuring out which qn's were real and which were not. So no matter what we come up with, people are going to bitch.
I agree with Becky in that, whatever is done, some will not be satisfied. With that said, let me also say that I like Chris N's proposed solution very much; I think it's as flawless as we can expect.
I have no suggestions for furthering this idea, but I would be curious to hear from those with usable vision in regards to the colors they feel would either positively or negatively impact their use of the site. Then again, it could very well be a moot point.
Jim
that was my questian. How are we ment to tell screen readers what colours to look for if we can't see them or don't kno what colours are? A jaws dictionary is not going to help anything if we can't tell jaws or whatever screen reader what it is we're looking for in the first place. A screen reader is only as good as the person operating it, and if you don't kno what your looking for, then how is the screen reader going to kno what to look for? I myself have never actually seen! a colour in my life, and no matter how much it gets described to me, it doesn't make sense, cause I can't see it for myself. I mean, I kno what the colours are, and I kno what colours are for, but not having seen a colour before, it doesn't always make sense to me, no matter how many times it gets described to me. Okay, so I maybe the most dumbest person ever, but I can't help that I do not get colours no matter how many times they are described to me.
So let them bitch.
All Chris N and his staff can do is work to make fake QN's more obvious. He's doing his best. Can't ask him to go bring down the moon or anything.
I would like to first start by pointing out to Kye that Wile you might have ideas you feel might be or might not be the right ideas, any information when I have posted data or any wording that is not my own I make it clear that it is from publick domain of witch any and all people have access to there for I in no way would be braking the law.
With regards to the idea as shown in the post from Chris N, I agree with your ideas and I feel this would help users to define what is a true quick note and what is not as it will give a clear way to find out where links are and where they are not for people. As liz pointed out in her point for those users that have no idea what colors are then how would you work around this? is this the users problam? Is this something that users of jaws or other screen reading software should know how to do? I truley feel that people should post as him or her self and not someone else. I don't care if anyone likes it or not it is how I feel and there you have it. I do feel the turms of service should be updated and that sub section should be expanded but I am in no place to say what happons or does not happon with this site.
The Fox
hm, for colors that would negativly effect the site, it depends on how a person is reading it, someone could have their windows appearance as black so what would work would be colors like yellow or orange or light blue, but if they didn't change the appearance so the site background is white those colors wouldn't really work and they would be hard on the eyes, so then you would want to use, blue, gray, dark red etc. It all depends on what the person has set as their windows appearance.
You should be able to use your screen reader to identify the color of text. This is done with the insert+5 keystroke in JAWS. I believe that those using screen readers should be proficient with the technology. I don't expect everyone to automatically know the command or even to know that a screen reader is capable of identifying color, but I do expect that people will make use of the feature after they know of its existence.
Thanks for the color suggestions. I'm considering either making the asterisks a different color or making them act as links to somethign. Would linking the asterisks unnecessarily break up reading of the page?
As I said in an earlier post, I like the linked asterisks idea. Most screen readers automatically denote the link attribute, so it'd take less effort on the user to, for the most part, detect when someone is indeed faking a system message or emote.
Maybe colour the linked asterisks differently based on the level of the message? Blue for actions, green for log-ins and log-outs (yes, for Zone by Phone, too), and red for system alerts and broadcast messages. Making the asterisks for the /me command (emotes) will keep it in line with the standard blue color for links, which precede a standard quicknote.
I don't know about the public quicknote links... Maybe add the user number next to the user name? At least then it'd take a bit more effort to closely emulate a false quicknote. Something like this:
Wraith (624):
My name is Joe, and I work in a button factory...
It's by no means foolproof, but maybe it'll help appease those who are advocates against fake quicknotes.
Kai
Oops. I did that wrong, and there was an extra blank line after the link to my user profile, but you get the idea.
Kai
Making the asterisks into links would satisfy my objections.
I personally think making the asterisks linked to something better, as I'd have to raise the level of punctuation here to even be aware of them when scrolling down the page. I only know of them if i move left and right across the line of text. Plus this would also mean if we don't wish to read qn from indeviduals we could more easily tab to the next qn again.
Linking the asterisks would be good!
and blue, green and red work with anything!!
Here are my opinions and all...
For colors, I'd stick with green and red because no matter if someone uses the contrast colors of zoom text or just the normal white background with black writing, these colors will stand out and are still readable. I'd stay clear of light colors such as yellow and pink, although they are very pretty. hehehe
I don't really like the idea of putting the user number in because it is just more for jaws to read or more for a person to read with their eyes and as soon as you'd make that change, the people doing the fake quicknotes would catch on and just add the user number to the fake quicknote, so really, it isn't a solution to help distinguish. I think the colors would help though.
oops i just noticed i have r e d instead of, r e a d, twice in my last post. sorry! hehehehe hehehehe my bad!
Ok, I know I said I was done posting to the topic (am I a board addict now?), but I promise this is the last one lol. I'll be quick. I just wanted to chime in on the whole color/asterisk issue. I agree with Becky who said that people will still complain. There definitely will be no solution I think that will make everyone completely happy or that everyone will agree on. Colors I don't think will affect me one way or another, but I don't think colors or asterisks solve the annoyance/not funny issues that people have about it which I actually think is truly the center of it all. I certainly didn't think this was something that should have required a re-working of how qn's are made/constructed/or appear.
Is there something else gained by revamping the whole thing? For example, would the addition of colors or asterisks add readability anyway? If so, investing the coding time to add them may not be so bad. However, if the only purpose to do so is to circumvent the fake notes by making them easily identifiable, I wonder if now that the issue is out there, if we could all just rise to a level of maturity and awareness and work among ourselves to establish a healthy balance of qn posts that will be fun and yet not obsessively annoying. Chris, would this be a pain to code? Liz, did you get clarification on how to use your screen reader to read you the colors?
I agree Diana. I'm wondering if the colors and asterisks aren't just more screen clutter. I know I can certainly restrain myself from using fake qn's so much now that I know several people find it so annoying. I just recently started doing it anyway and tend to do it only when others are. But I still prefer policing ourselves to having the threat of being banned from the site if we continue to do it.
dianna i whole heartedly agree with you.
Action asterisks now link to the relevant user's profile. System message asterisks, such as login and logout messages, are colored green. Hopefully these changes will allow users to better make their own decisions on what they view as acceptable content, since we are thankfully not your parents.
Love you "not my daddy" Chris. Seriously, thanks for investing your time in resolving this.
Hugs,
Not Dianna
what i do ti figure out if a qn is fake is right arrow on the name, and if it is the word link i know its fake however if someone is moving quickly down the page they will probably think its a link and not think twice to look
like, web rent a crowd for jaws users. grin.