Any concealable weapon, be it a knife, a pistol, or even a taser or vial of pepper spray, is strongly controlled and almost always illegal for a civilian to carry. Canada shares the law with the United States such that any civilian-owned weapon cannot be fully automatic -- however, Canada is also far stricter on the use of military hardware: military weapons converted from full-automatic to semi-automatic are still illegal, and submachine guns are entirely banned (regardless of being semi-automatic or not). And, of course, heavy-duty military weapons (like grenade launchers, military flamethrowers, rocket launchers, etc.) are illegal in Canada as well as in the United States.
Since Guy pointed out that the right to bear arms is a throw against government oppression, I'm not going to claim that the Canadian system is any better: but what I will claim is that Canada doesn't possess a right to bear arms because, generally, control of the military belongs to the minister of defence, who in turn can only act with the complete support of the House of Commons (which is drawn from civilians).
(Interesting and absolutely inane tidbits of Canadian law: if someone breaks-and-enters onto your property, they're not legally trespassing until they take something or you tell them to leave. And if they hurt themselves on your property, you can be sued for it.)
Problems:
Reviewed and accepted adult games is an oxymoron in the BYOND community People may just not check th box, and we get loads of adult games on the unadult hub. | |
Thats a great idea. You would probably get a lot of people clicking the link under a differnt key in an attempt to get their game reviewed faster. Figuring that it will get reviewed while the reviewer is checking it for "illegal" content.
Depending on weather or not the link would be there for all games or just the ones under review, then you might need to form a team of seperate moderators who have the sole task of cleaning out the junk. | |
Id like to see some sort of indication of how many games are in front of you in the list of things to be reviewed. The main problem with this is that it puts too much pressure on the reviewers too keep that number steadily decreasing. Right now they can do nothing all week, then completely whipe the list clean on the weekend, which is ultimately more productive.
[Edit] Also, for the games that are just off getting accepted (Ie, its manual is a little too vague), they have a priority flag and comments variable. So the reviewers will see the name in red, read what had to be changed, then check too see if those things have been changed. Then all thats left is too give it the once over and accept or decline it. | |
Have it so each reviewer can set a date that they will review on, and if the day goes by and they did not review, have it send them an e-mail telling them they missed the review. Like when they change the date, that is what keeps the e-mails from coming, but they can only change the date after they have logged into the submissions area.
Also the dates should be displayed on a special page along with links to that channel's bwicki page, and that reviewer. Also it would be good if some people completed the bwicki channel pages that don't now exist. | |
I would hate that, really. I only review when I feel like it, and having a set date would only make me not want to do it more.
| |
Just getting back from my week of study and getting my Solaris Certificate!! Whooo hoo!! :D
Something that I'd like to see if larger selection of areas as well as posted review time and that those times be kept or the reviewer(s) removed from service. LJR | |
Though your the best one of them all Nadrew is this is not really meant to be just pointed at you. I'd like higher profession service from the review team and just doing it when you felt like it is not cutting it for me. sorry... Do I ask to much? Just a little more professionalism here please..
LJR | |
Crispy wrote:
It's a volunteer job, he's not getting paid for it. Why should it have to be on a strict timetable? Because it presents a timely manner and a sign of responsible professionalism. I think we need to revamp the reviewers as well with and just lay down some new guidelines that will fit in with the changes Deadron is making and the suggestions being made here. You can't just change features on a website and expect things to carry on the way they have. A lot of the fault I've seen so far with the whole review process is lack of it. Not trying to be an ass here or anything just hoping to see the process improved. LJR ps. Just cause you don't get paid for something, doesn't give you a reason to be lazy or untoughtful of others' endevours. | |
Crispy wrote:
It's a volunteer job, he's not getting paid for it. Or so you think, okay, I don't get paid, but I do get stuff in return. | |
You must understand when I state that it goes to include a much more robust and active system than currently in place.
LJR | |
Okay, LJR, this is gonna come off really mean probably but here's what I have to say.
Just because you don't like how fast the process is working, doesn't mean you have to REMOVE a VOLUNTEER from doing their job, you have to understand the review staff does this on their own freewill, having a schedual will drive us all away, the good thing about being a reviewer is you do it when you have time, not when you're forced to do it. These people are helping a lot, and have lives of their own, so shut up, and appreciate that it's not like it was before where you had to wait upwards of 6 months for a review, gads. | |
Just have an age verification put in place. If you have a key that is flagged as 18+ then you're responsible for it. Then and only then would someone be allow to host or view anything consider adult content. And sometimes it doesn't even have to be vulgar or nudity. It could just be a place to older people to hang out and have a section of the site for themselves, like bars in the real world.
LJR | |
Nadrew wrote:
Okay, LJR, this is gonna come off really mean probably but here's what I have to say.It cool Nadrew.. we both have the right to speak our mind, even if I may be in the wrong, I feel I should express this as I care about BYOND and its a concern I have. Just because you don't like how fast the process is working, doesn't mean you have to REMOVE a VOLUNTEER from doing their job,Well I think some new guidelines are in order that reviewers must agree to in the first place. The only people that should ever be removed are those that do not agree to the new rules or do not follow them. I'm just asking that we revamp the system to work in favor of the developers who give this place content which drives the business and subject matter here. you have to understand the review staff does this on their own freewill, having a schedual will drive us all away, the good thing about being a reviewer is you do it when you have time, not when you're forced to do it.Thats the way it has been and I see problems with that. As well its obvious this should not continue, or this mentalty of I'll do it when I get to it should be support by the staff. If you have to go away or find yourself unable to access the internet for any amount of time everyone who at least have a backup person to help or fill the void. These people are helping a lot, and have lives of their own, so shut up, and appreciate that it's not like it was before where you had to wait upwards of 6 months for a review, gads.Hmm not only do I find this a bit disappoint on your part, but this is the very thing I'm driving at here. It appears the review process is in need of change, and just to point to the way it use to be does nothing validate the way things are now. LJR | |
LordJR wrote:
Well I think some new guidelines are in order that reviewers must agree to in the first place. The only people that should ever be removed are those that do not agree to the new rules or do not follow them. I'm just asking that we revamp the system to work in favor of the developers who give this place content which drives the business and subject matter here. The reviewing system is being given an overhaul already. The guidelines are fine, as I understand them. It might help if you actually said WHAT GUIDELINES you think should be in place. Then we could have a meaningful discussion about them. you have to understand the review staff does this on their own freewill, having a schedual will drive us all away, the good thing about being a reviewer is you do it when you have time, not when you're forced to do it.Thats the way it has been and I see problems with that. As well its obvious this should not continue What problems? Do you want all games to be reviewed by the next business day or something equally crazy? If you have to go away or find yourself unable to access the internet for any amount of time everyone who at least have a backup person to help or fill the void. This isn't the issue here. These people are helping a lot, and have lives of their own, so shut up, and appreciate that it's not like it was before where you had to wait upwards of 6 months for a review, gads.Hmm not only do I find this a bit disappoint on your part, but this is the very thing I'm driving at here. It is? It appears the review process is in need of change, and just to point to the way it use to be does nothing validate the way things are now. As I said before, what changes? Things have drastically improved from their previous state. Excuse me if this is a little blunt, but complaining that the reviewers are lazy sounds extremely selfish and rubbishes all of the hard volunteer work the reviewers have been doing. | |
LordJR wrote:
ps. Just cause you don't get paid for something, doesn't give you a reason to be lazy or untoughtful of others' endevours. I will agree that we need to continually work on getting reviews done faster, but given that Nadrew has taken up the slack by reviewing literally hundreds of entries himself (and that involves taking real time for the reviews), for you to then call him lazy is quite the insult. It's one thing to have a general issue with the system. It's another to insult those putting a lot of work into it. If you want others to be thoughtful and professional in their approach, then perhaps you should start by presenting the same yourself. | |
The reviewing system is being given an overhaul already. The guidelines are fine, as I understand them. It might help if you actually said WHAT GUIDELINES you think should be in place. Then we could have a meaningful discussion about them. It may of been in a thread up. The guideline I'd like to see in place(not to be as blunt and rude as my rebutters) is just to have a system setup BY the reviewers themselves to a timely review. I don't play a part in that process so I'm sure among yourselves you can come up with something better than currently in place. What problems? Do you want all games to be reviewed by the next business day or something equally crazy? Of course not, I know what I'm saying is going against most the reviewers and those in charge, but its only cause I suggest change, its never easy to accept these things when its personal. I leave the times up to you, but I would only ASK 1)That they be put into place, 2) The time of reviews would be kept, like any responsible volunteer should do. It should just be apart of applying to do this. From what I've gotten so far from most the staff, is they most want these positions not to fill a need, but for personal reasons. This isn't the issue here.In the past I was told it wasn't.. yet.. still things were being put off time and time again. Excuse me if this is a little blunt, but complaining that the reviewers are lazy sounds extremely selfish and rubbishes all of the hard volunteer work the reviewers have been doing. I find a problem with that Deadron.. you're speak up as though people were doing a great job! I beg to differ.. I'm sure there are many more out there who would enjoy the chance to review and in a more responsible time. Also the lazy statement was only taken out of context from one of your own reviewers. If you missed it, you may want to see where that first came into discussion. Out of most the reviewers, I saw Nadrew taking up most the slack, and doing from what I could tell a great job. Some of the other newer reviewers even complained of not having anything to review, I'm sure they were doing go work as well. I'll repeat again I would just like a agreed upon timeframe to be set into place, not slack on the fact that everyone here is giving their time, therefore bottle necking the process and making hard working developers have to wait. Is there anything here I've not made myself clear on? I really only have two issues with the review process. 1) The amount of time it takes and not having an set standard 2) The lax mentality that if you are a volunteer of your time you not to be held to any timeframe or responsiblity. I'm sure your local Fire Dept would like to use that one. Cheers! LJR | |
I won't pursue it further than to say that quite frequently (much more frequently than actually protecting one's self) people exercising this judgment shoot someone they didn't intend to.
Whatever the legality, if you are going to take on the authority to shoot people on your property, you must also accept the heavy responsibility if your judgment is wrong, and you must be aware that statistically, people are wrong on this quite often.