What is going wrong? Does anyone speak up consistently? Many do. But, shown below is the ineffectiveness of how most speak up. A revison must be made in the tactics; a new wave of actions should overtake.
Jeff Gray collected e-mail notices from Talk City Corporate about impending changes late last year. He then entered certain channels to show he had had them published and where. He publicly passed out links to the e-mails from TC. A previous Talk Citizen asked Gray, "Are you on a mission, or something?" For she must not have understood Gray's intentions.
Gray wasn't on some "going-crazy" mission; he was simply distributing news which Talk City could have distributed on its own. Yet, Talk City couldn't distribute Gray's reactions to to e-mailed news reports about upcoming Talk City changes (e.g., the current ChatSafe).
ChatSafe is indeed a correct way to protect its own property from abuse, trespassing. Talk City is a store which may rightfully keep anyone out it wishes. Hopefully, always based on sound reasoning. But certain self-appointed "hosts" and "hostesses" hinted at in Chapter One are the antithesis of the ChatSafe protection program through their ops even if they also use software* to achieve their others-controlling, real-estate-leeching ends.
Sometime in 2001, a rumor in Talk City circulated among chatusers which stated that certain roomnames ending with a number (e.g. Chat1, Chat2,) could not be used until first the main room (e.g., Chat) was filled completely. Then each numbered room branching off that main room could be used and then filled to the brim in numerical order.
Late in 2001, the above rule -- -- if it even existed -- -- was cited by censoring chatusers as the reason that chatusers could not remain in the Talk City channel Courtship2. The real reason was certain users' theft of property -- -- those tech-operators who loved to be "deadbeat tenants" who wanted to act as if each "owned" Talk City rooms and "benevolently" offered use of "their" rooms to "friends" -- -- actually, users who adhered to the "operator's" whimsical and changing unofficial rules. Thus, users of the "rented" rooms quickly found each had to tread lightly in avoiding banning by the usurping "authorities" of the "rented" rooms. The same situation arose in Courtship2, mentioned above. Such a room was closed by Talk City late in 2001, yet "well-meaning" chatusers were able to move in and "claim" a room named "Courtship2" so that "we can keep it open" when in reality, there were times when no one except the usurping user, a censor identified by "FreedLove" who was parading around in the guise of other familiar chatters, was permitted in "Courtship2" -- -- a room that could have continued to legitimately exist if it weren't for those very power-seeking "ops"-users. Such folks are not invited to even read this document or any of the sites on which it is published -- -- trespassing is their offense in that case. No reader or writer of savesale sites is permitted to behave in such controlling ways. Also, contributors to those sites, such as "freedlove-guest", would not be allowed to censor others or use multiple identities to "achieve" harmful ends, even though she was accused thusly. But, Multiple Identities?
To tell a factual story, a certain man was definitely the bestest friend of the writer in chat. When he was daily in public Talk City, he was frequently maligned and criticized, almost always needlessly and without cause. The attacks reportedly caused him anguish in his offline life. Just like freedlove-guest of early-winter 2001 post-courtship2 channels such as courtships. He and the writer clicked well as a team of two, raising new discoveries of others' behaviors in classic, late-night Courtship3 and then later, Courtship2. Thus, a detection of his springs to mind over two years later: one of the very same opponents of freedlove within the past eight months was identified as one who used a dummy id, a multiple alter-ego identity, to criticize himself, to file a report with the "regs" pertaining to his regular identity, to see who would be critical of him "behind his back". As for the writer of Chapter One, if not for his willing assistant, the writer would have missed such a detail. In his innocence of the situation, the writer was quite compassionate toward the familiar figure in his "absence" and attempted to explain the familiar figure's character to this seeming "newbie." But, after knowing the facts, such a poor self-image that portrays. But then, so does his willingness to choose what others hafta say, cannot say, or even what they would call themselves (nickname dictation), like the whining and sniveling chat user who banned others from his channel simply because they questioned his reasons for banning. He had no more reason to shed self-tears in his palace as he frequently did in Courtship1 and elsewhere before he picked-up his own channel: this time, if any would not talk to him, or talked "down" to him, the time-honored boot rid the area of the "offender". As a former host of Talk City confided in the author, concerning the proliferation of new channels, with their scads of impotent and inexperienced "owners", "There's much more to hosting than just 'ops'."
Why should anyone, especially ones pretending to rent chat channels, be allowed to commit nickname dictation? A chat user in innocence creates a nickname, submits to the server, is approved, and enters a room to have a controlling Hitler throw that user out, when the user was honest to the chat server, and that is all that matters.
A writer for this Web site wrote recently:
"How I wish "Bobby Maxwell" could see this!! Where is he? Who is "Bobby Maxwell"? Maxwell was my willing assistant in Technological Controls Banned who watched the chat-room crowds and picked up on subtle situations that on occasion I overlooked or didn't understand. Criticized, he eventually went into hiding elsewhere in Talk City, into rooms most of us do not enter, only to crawl into courtships (not courtship) in disguise. He may have lost his Net access. If it weren't for the unneeded bashing, Maxwell would indeed have been excited to read Technological Controls Banned - - no, he would have delightedly contributed to the texts and the other operations Technological Controls Banned represents. ...He would have gladly continued as my detective-like partner."
An example? Take "freedlove-guest" D Steel's situation for example:
"Freedlove-guest" under other nicknames tried to move about secretly to accomplish goals but was found to be disliked by "ops" usurpers such as the above-mentioned woifpup13 who at times pretended to have rented chatroom channels which were stolen. ...After all, the control of the rooms had to be constant or it would have been overwork to regain it, much more that typing a password!! Those controllers were violent toward her and others, violently physical and verbally offensive while accusing freedlove of offending. They were not interested in others,such as brief analysis of ChattersAnonimous's rightful owner seems to show her to be. They were interested in unearned, unconstitutional, forceful power to block the speech of certain others daily. Today with these final pages in the Meanani Foundation's one-year-long project, the Foundation will rip apart this and other problems pervading its beloved Talk City.
You take chat too seriously...' Each of us has heard some version of this remark. What does that mean? The speaker means possibly that the one listening is chatting too much. More likely, it is an excuse to harm others, to lie and cheat. This issue should be dealt with more specifically within a chat server's rules, such as Talk City Rules. I ask myself often what the purpose of creating chat was in the minds of its creator[s]. I have seen people entering a chat room briefly because they needed information, like, 'How can I hard-boil an egg?' Home alone, and confused how to do something, the one needing help turns to the many faceless people found 'inside' their computer monitors or TV screens. Most people, even ones devoted to Romance and Social chat rooms, are in the rooms for friendship. Quite a few are there for love. All these types can be preyed upon by the ones who are in chat for more sinister reasons. It is these ones which cause disillusioned chat room users to proclaim, as I have heard, 'There is no honesty in chat!' How sad that people believe this. I know this is not so, for I chat! Lying, chatters say, 'It is only chat,' 'You take chat so seriously,' even, 'Lighten up!' as these phrases ease the consciences of those who are hurting others. It is so easy to lie when it is not face-to-face. It is so easy to hide evils when it is not face-to-face. 'Safely' hidden on a chair at home, staring at words on a screen, it is easy to fight, threaten, bully, others. Let's see the same ones do this to others he or she comes across in person.People are 'meeting', falling in love, and creating strong bonds of friendship [and foeship] in chat rooms. My mom, who has never chatted yet has been almost forced to watch chat, summarizes it as basically a rumor mill and a place where people silently compete to see who has the foulest mouth. These actions take place in the rooms. But the fact can't be evaded that people often initiate friendships and relationships which are eventually transferred outside of cyberspace. I did. I have no regrets about meeting Taragrul face-to-face. ...Chat was a success for me in that.The ones I often term the bad guys must not ruin the goals each of has for being in chat. Entertain no lies about you anywhere, in or out of chat. Answer and move away. Anyone who causes others trouble in hat, causes a disturbance, is in violation of the rules, which are not well- applied to these situations, after all: 'DO NOT ACT IN WAYS THAT ARE DISRUPTIVE OR IMPEDE THE FLOW OF CHAT' [not an exact quote]. Public arguing should be reported....as disorderly conduct should be when noticed in the streets.
And, finally, to wrap up this chapter, no one who reads "Summer Special" or anything else on the same site should miscontrue anything as dislike, a sour attitude, or unconcern toward anyone...anyone, that is, save for one who dodged ailing savesale's presence in 2000 when he was bed-ridden, and that chatuser knew he was sickly, but only for a brief span of time. That ended a tumultuous situation (which no one needed at the time) with someone who couldn't submit the ending of it to her man; rather used the illness to drop from the scene, and when he got well, he attempted several times to contact the dropper. It would be amiss on ending this cheerful chapter with that ex-boyfriend's hardened thoughts against that lone person.
------
*The writer is not familiar with the described methods and might be in error on mentioning software here.