Checked with another Op on this and newbie rooms can only be hosted by Ops at the mo.
A couple of other things I'd like to raise that I believe fit into this discussion:
The site rules are very clear on two things: no rooms that encourage illegal activities, and no references to minors in usernames.
The first has been the subject of much debate and resulted in a change to the rules for rooms referring to certain articles of clothing because of some of the types it attracts (who are in the minority). However there are established BDSM rooms hosted, and those for dogging and cruising. Whilst I agree with the reasoning behing preventing the former, the latter demonstrates the issue is not being handled consistently.
I'm a firm believer in the rights of the individual to participate in any consentual act providing it does no harm to anyone else (e.g. BDSM) but it is nevertheless illegal. This inconsistency causes confusion for members.
With regard to minors, this rule clearly isn't being enforced and there appears to be no simple way of unacceptable nicknames being dealt with. Just take a look in any chatroom and you'll find plenty of people with "boy", "lad", "girl" in their names (most of which are middle-aged).
My second point is regarding Ops. I believe the process for applications and acceptance criteria should be more transparent. There are plenty of people who appear to be suitable for the post and we are desparately short of them. Those who already hold this position do an excellent job for the most part and I hope would welcome additional help.
Having been through the application process twice without success I'm still at a loss as to exactly how it works. I have no desire to apply again but I'd hope that something better could be put in place to deal with applications.
Perhaps the site Admins should consider some sort of buddying scheme or monitored probation period to attract more people.
Ok ok already! pmsl
Signature changed but I'm hanging onto the penguin facelift for now.....
Yes I see that happening a lot too - perhaps the Create Room box could include a little bit of text reminding hosts that they have responsibilities too.
It would need to be kept short otherwise no-one will ever read it, but could link to the Chatroom Rules and AUP.
I think the idea about having standard messages attached to emoticon-type buttons has some merit. Here's another suggestion for the new chatroom that might help (taking onboard Ian's comments about people getting argumentative when it's posted by room hosts).
How about some static text that appears permanently at the top of the chat window, which is customisable by the room host when they start a room up? There could be (a) no whispering, (b) no directing, (c) directing allowed and others.
Here's a mock-up to give you an idea of what I mean - these options could be tick-boxes or radio buttons the room host selects when opening a room:
The existing message about not whispering uninvited and no posting of URLs or phone numbers is a good one, but it soon scrolls off the screen. A more visible and permanent reminder would be better.
Depends how they've been saved in the first place - if they're MP3, WAV or WMA you should be ok transferring them. If you've purchased songs from iTunes that are in AAC (Apple) format they may be locked and difficult to copy.
This is where iTunes is a real pain and Apple is being leant upon by the EC Courts for having restrictive practices.....if you pay for a song, why should you only be able to play it in iTunes or on your iPod?
There are numerous programmes around that remove the AAC copy protection so you can move your files just like any other media file. Have a search on Google or PM me if you want any further info.
Another one you may want to consider ie eMule - works for me, tho I generally only use it to download remixes and mashups that aren't available commercially
...and a lot of other online indicators don't work at all. I've just checked mine (I'm only in the Forums, have been logged in for 10 minutes and haven't disabled it) and I'm showing as offine.
I've not managed to find a single person who shows as online recently....wasn't there another thread about this which seemed to indicate there's a general problem with the setting?
:uhoh:
I've seen this topic come up with interest. Only had the chance to have a speed-read through some of the points put forward so far so I'll come back and digest it in detail during the week.
One initial observation I'd like to make is that the subject was raised as a result of an article published in the Lancet, contributed to by learned medical professionals. The Home Office are poo-poohing its content.
Which are you more likely to believe (particularly given recent exposes of incompetence): the medical profession or the Home Office?
From eBay's viewpoint, I'd presume it's also going to depend on the payment methods he quoted in his advert.
They say cash isn't recommended in their help screens (which I realise isn't much help to you either at this stage).
I'd think if someone at eBay has any common sense, they'd realise you couldn't have duped the bloke if you have the paperwork that goes with the bike. That's your main proof that he must have been satisfied with the transaction otherwise he wouldn't have handed it over.
Coming up soon - I've started compiling the new questions. Keep an eye in here as I'll be advertising it in plenty of time to take part. The next one will probably be on a Sunday evening.
:rotflmao: :rotflmao:
hwoar:
