Want to get rid of the popups??

[PLATO]

Originally posted by monkspider
I think that something that some people here have lost sight of is that this is a fan site, not a buisiness, and the primary focus should not be to generate revenue.

If poly is hard up for cash, there are plenty who here would happily donate to help it, myself included. But the solution should not be to alienate so many long-time visitors of Poly.

Whoa!! Nobody is saying that this is about money. There are two fundamental facts:

1.) This service would be for convienience and would not be mandatory...Again, nothing changes for you if you don't get the service.

2.) Running this site isn't free. Some consideration must be given to revenue. Didn't the down time over the summer iritate the crap out of you? A fully funded Apolyton would not face those issues. Everybody said, "Buy a new server", "Ad memory", "Upgrade this", "Upgrade that". What? Do you expect Mark and Dan to just write a personal check? Can't have it both ways folks.

Furthermore, Mark has made it VERY clear that this site will remain free and that it is DEDICATED to gaming.

[Whaleboy]

monkspider:

Thus far the argument for pop-ups is like the argument against cannabis.

"Well whatever the rights and wrongs, that is the law" I'd expect better from intelligent people.

[Whaleboy]

Furthermore, Mark has made it VERY clear that this site will remain free and that it is DEDICATED to gaming.

Then I hope his subscription-for-bonuses scheme works out!

EDIT: A modification to the anti-popins and anti-popups strategy. You need to disable javascript for a specific website, or if possible (Mozilla and Opera iirc, hopefully Firefox soon) specific calls within javascript. Its probably easy (and safer) just to kill it full stop for a given site.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Thus far the argument for pop-ups is like the argument against cannabis.

"Well whatever the rights and wrongs, that is the law" I'd expect better from intelligent people.

One would expect the intelligent person to recognize the obvious difference in the two arguments

Then I hope his subscription-for-bonuses scheme works out!

You begin to see the light, don't you?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
That is true, but you have not addressed the problem I have that the conditions made are unreasonable.

Unreasonable is an opinion, not a fact. I think expecting to use a site without contributing is unreasonable.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Now I could argue that I signed up in Jan 2003, where there was nothing that said I must have pop-up blockers turned off etc. I agreed to those conditions and am thus a member. I have largely abided by those conditions since then, and where I havent, on 2/3 occasions IIRC I have been penalised. I abide by the conditions as of Jan 2003 and have not been asked to agree to new terms on condition of my continued posting. The fact that I am still doing so attests to that fact. It is a ridiculous proposition.

I'm pretty sure in the sign up it says that rules can be changed at any time, without prior notice. It's your job to stay up to date with them.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Actually it's pretty much loathed accross the IT industry.

Appeal to popularity?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Not when I signed up. The best attack against your position is as I said earlier, even if I agreed to let Apolyton send my the pop-up data via the internet, which they do, they do not stipulate how I use it. It does not display on my computer, but that is my end. Do they stipulate the contrast and brightness on my monitor? If they stated that the contrast had to be at a certain level on condition of my using the site, would that be reasonable? I think not. The same situation is occuring here, yet as it is internal to the computer it is harder to perceive than in physical terms, yet conceptually and logically it is the same.

However financially it isn't. They get money of it pops up. They don't if it doesn't. Also, as said many times before, they could ask you to do anything as a condition of using the site, and it is your job to take it or leave it.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You send me the data. I do what I want with it. I do not want to display pop-ups so I reject that data that has been sent to my computer (apolyton jurisdiction over) and display only what I want. That is reasonable. Now whether or not I am breaking an agreement (which I do not believe I am but if so, it is some few words I didnt read) is trivial in comparison to the issue that such a demand is unreasonable. Furthermore, it is untenable within four months, and increasingly so now as alternative browsers with pop-up blockers are becoming more common. That would seem to render this argument academic.

Unreasonable is your opinion. The webmasters obviously do not agree, and they decide on the rules. It is a simple take it or leave it offer. As for popup blockers being common, it doesn't change their effect. More popup blockers means more popups for those of us that don't use them, to get the same revenue to keep it affloat. If we all followed your example, there wouldn't be an Apolyton. Popups are a small price to pay.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Thus far the argument for pop-ups is like the argument against cannabis.

"Well whatever the rights and wrongs, that is the law" I'd expect better from intelligent people.

Strawman. We are saying that it is the owners freedom to decide what is the conditions of using their property. Like a landlord can set the condition for his tenants. We're not saying it's the law. We're saying morally it's their choice, and you have the choice to take it or leave it. You do not have the choice to take part of it and not the rest. Like you don't have the choice to rent a flat but decide not to take out the rubbish. It's a requirement.

Such a blatant strawman. I'd expect better from intelligent people

[chequita guevara]

I'm happy to subscribe to get rid of those stupid ads.

[Thorn]

NO TAXES WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!! Can we get this through your thick skulls!

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Thorn
NO TAXES WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!! Can we get this through your thick skulls!

And just how many times have you heard Ming say "This is not a Democracy"?

The actual rule is : No representation without Ownership!

[Thorn]

Well Ming is a Meany, I don't listen to him enough....

[Whaleboy]

One would expect the intelligent person to recognize the obvious difference in the two arguments

Your telling me to obey the rules with spurious reasoning, as is the state with regards to cannabis. OTF seems to have a similar effect on some people.... Where is the analogy flawed?

You begin to see the light, don't you?

They're not going to start charging me for sunlight are they?

Unreasonable is an opinion, not a fact. I think expecting to use a site without contributing is unreasonable.

You use the internet all the time without contributing. Is that unreasonable? I have contributed to apolyton by buying a book from amazon which I accessed using the link. The costs associated to apolyton by my membership are negligible, I would speculate they have profited from me. Apolyton's wealth, therefore, would decrease were I not a member, at least using the same simplistic maths MarkG used on the com thread.

I'm pretty sure in the sign up it says that rules can be changed at any time, without prior notice. It's your job to stay up to date with them.

If so, then I stand corrected, but I want a link or a reference before I comment further on that issue.

Appeal to popularity?

Touche . They are generally hated though accross the internet, so one could make a case for the greater acceptability of blockers vs pop-ups.

However financially it isn't. They get money of it pops up. They don't if it doesn't.

Consequential. Not my concern, nor my obligation.

they could ask you to do anything as a condition of using the site

Unreasonable is your opinion. The webmasters obviously do not agree, and they decide on the rules. It is a simple take it or leave it offer.

I leave it and see if they follow through with their unreasonable (imo) views. If they do, so be it.

More popup blockers means more popups for those of us that don't use them, to get the same revenue to keep it affloat. If we all followed your example, there wouldn't be an Apolyton. Popups are a small price to pay.

If we followed your example, pop-ups would be the only source of revenue for the site.

Strawman. We are saying that it is the owners freedom to decide what is the conditions of using their property.

Not at all. My interpretation is that they provide the data, and I do not interfere with that data transfer. I use it however my computer uses it. They have provided the data. Unless apolyton starts to spoon feed me I dont see how this can be any other way, so my point stands. As long as it operates on a "user browsing the service" model this situation will remain the same.

It's a requirement.

My interpretation, that this site requires me to accept their data, including the pop-up data. Which I do willingly. I view the pop-ups as I view the forums. No strawman there, if you would care to read.

"Take it or leave it" is a pretty oblique argument however. I am questioning their argument whereas you are effectively telling me not to. "Well, that's the way it is, you gotta accept if it you want to browse this site". Well that's not good enough. I want to know why, I want to know alternatives, I want to know implications, and I think it is erroneous. You have to show me why it is not erroneous and I vice versa. "Take it or leave it" is useless, effectively "Might makes right". That cuts no ice.

Such a blatant strawman. I'd expect better from intelligent people

I'd expect intelligent people to be able to read properly, and not respond with informal fallacies .

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Not at all.

You stated

"Well whatever the rights and wrongs, that is the law"

as our argument, which it isn't. We are not using the law. We are saying that morally the owners have a right to put conditions on the use of their site. That isn't a legal issue, it's a moral one. That wasn't the argument we were making, hence my claim that it was a strawman.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
"Take it or leave it" is a pretty oblique argument however. I am questioning their argument whereas you are effectively telling me not to. "Well, that's the way it is, you gotta accept if it you want to browse this site".

That's what it is. If you want to argue about whether pop-ups are the best method, that's another argument. All I'm saying is that the owners have a right to attach conditions on the use of the site, pop-up blockers being one they have. You're not questioning their argument, that would be arguing why pop-ups are bad. You are saying you don't have to agree to the conditions of using this site.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Well that's not good enough. I want to know why, I want to know alternatives, I want to know implications, and I think it is erroneous. You have to show me why it is not erroneous and I vice versa. "Take it or leave it" is useless, effectively "Might makes right". That cuts no ice.

No, this isn't an argument about what is the best option. We don't have a say in that, it is the owner's decision. This is an argument about whether you can choose to accept the site without the conditions, which you cannot. It's not migth makes right, in the sense of a disagreement and the most powerful person wins all the time, it is a situation where someone is allowing you to use their property if you agree to their conditions. You cannot rent a house, deside you don't like some of the conditions and so not stick to them. Either you stick to them or you would be evicted.

Whether it cuts ice with you or not isn't an issue. You don't make the rules. They own the site, they have the right to make the rules. It's quite simple. Unless you believe that morally they shouldn't have the right to their own property, then you must conceed that they have the right to set the rules. And if you do believe as such, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
"Take it or leave it" is a pretty oblique argument however. I am questioning their argument whereas you are effectively telling me not to. "Well, that's the way it is, you gotta accept if it you want to browse this site". Well that's not good enough. I want to know why, I want to know alternatives, I want to know implications, and I think it is erroneous. You have to show me why it is not erroneous and I vice versa. "Take it or leave it" is useless, effectively "Might makes right". That cuts no ice.

There have been multiple discussions (or arguments if you will) on this subject. I'm sure you would have been a welcome contributor. The fact remains that this site is private property, it needs revenue to continue, and there is some interest in this solution. The fact that this model contains a "Don't sign up and NOTHING changes" feature is a nice concession from the owners.

By not allowing pop-ups you are causing your fellow posters to see more of them. Is this morally correct? Mark has indicated that he feels it is not. Shouldn't you respect the wishes of those who provide this venue to express your views?

[Whaleboy]

We are not using the law. We are saying that morally the owners have a right to put conditions on the use of their site. That isn't a legal issue, it's a moral one. That wasn't the argument we were making, hence my claim that it was a strawman.

No Drogue. The law is the system of rules by which cannabis is prohibited. The "rules" here are the analogous device.

That's what it is. If you want to argue about whether pop-ups are the best method, that's another argument.

I want to argue about their presence and whether or not our "obligation" to accept them is reasonable. The question itself is debatable.

You're not questioning their argument, that would be arguing why pop-ups are bad. You are saying you don't have to agree to the conditions of using this site.

I am saying why it is a bad condition to impose.

No, this isn't an argument about what is the best option. We don't have a say in that, it is the owner's decision.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the owners are capable of having people questioning their views. That is what I am doing.

It's not migth makes right

You have the rules on your side of the argument, and are referring to their existence and contradiction to me as to why I should abide by them. It seems self evident how that is a might makes right argument.

You cannot rent a house, deside you don't like some of the conditions and so not stick to them.

You can question those conditions and not follow them. Where they do not harm the landlord, and creates no suffering there is no reason to kick them out. Utilitarianism... it's not all bad... .

Whether it cuts ice with you or not isn't an issue. You don't make the rules. They own the site, they have the right to make the rules.

That's the way it is so accept it if you want to post here. That is largely irrelevant to the nature of this debate.

Unless you believe that morally they shouldn't have the right to their own property

Don't get me started...

you must conceed that they have the right to set the rules.

They have the right to set the rules, and the right to kick me out. I have the right to a) question those rules and b) break one (a minor one at that I hasten to add) as a calculated risk, where the benefits (also I cant be bothered to work out how to exempt a site) outweigh the potential risks. I have been using mozilla, firebird, opera and firefox for many months with no mention of the pop-ups issue. They are free to delete my account if they so wish, but that does nothing to annihilate what I am saying.

Fundamentally however, I consider it woefully unreasonable to expect as a condition of using a service that I have to have my computer configured in a certain way. Indeed, when Microsoft was creating difficulties for people who weren't using IE, iirc there was a tempestuous row and now they do not exclude. Websites who create such conditions are being unreasonable imo. I am not questioning their right to make such a condition, as a libertarian I support that right, however some conditions are sensible, some are not. This is not in my view for the aforementioned reasons.

I have seen no-one thus far show me why it is in my interests to disable my pop-up blocker. That's an open invitation by the way, to anyone who can give me a good, civil, rational reason as to why I am cheating myself. Because I'm not going to start giving charity in terms of my memory!!

[Whaleboy]

By not allowing pop-ups you are causing your fellow posters to see more of them. Is this morally correct? Mark has indicated that he feels it is not. Shouldn't you respect the wishes of those who provide this venue to express your views?

Unless you can show as a direct consequence of my actions that people are seeing more pop-ups, I will not accept that view for the simple reason that the actions of one person and his browser are unlikely to impact majorly upon the computers of thousands. And that tiny impact I am causing? Well I'm sure I'll sleep soundly tonight . It's like saying I contribute to global warming if I get gas!

May I pose a question? Does Apolyton state that they are not responsible for the computers of its users, in terms of damage, software etc? Can you provide quotes?