Pink Poogle Toy Forum

Vomitting once probably wouldn't be enough for a law suit it's more trouble than it's worth, you really don't want to pay to go to court it's really expensive and 'it made me barf once' isn't enough to get a settlement.
A message brought to you by "Don't Sue People Panda"

i was joking about sueing but its just annoying how people can make ppl sick and not care

It's gone now!

Yvonne, you said it more perfectly than I ever could. That's my mission for today. To talk to someone in Neo about changing their policy. I already have the names of the heads of their IT and Legal departments and plan on sending snail mail to each of them, along with facts that I have gathered about flicker-rate and color intensity and how that produces seizures and migraines in people who are sensitive. And, to let them know, if they don't know it already, that various health, children's and disabled groups have asked website providers to follow guidelines concerning flicker-rate and color intensity.

From a Japanese study, http://education.umn.edu/kls/ecee/pdfs/iea2003horie.pdf:

For anyone wanting to know more information about photosensitive epilepsy and how flicker rate on the web, especially with he color red, affects people with that type of epilepsy, this is a great site:
http://juicystudio.com/article/photosensitive-epilepsy.php

As the author points out:

I will keep my fellow PPTers apprised of any responses I get from Neopets.

That's very odd. I looked at that site and got a violent headache. I always used to suffer from bad headaches as a child and no one knew the cause of them. They've stopped since I've stopped watching childrens TV. I might go and get checked out at the doctors and see if it could be related to photosensitivety.

Need I remind you of the title of this board?

I am well aware of epilepsy and its effects on people and I am not playing down the fact that the lookup caused problems for some people.

Obviously Morningstar wants to see the problem addressed and I commend anyone who takes the time to put forward a logical and sound argument.

What I objected to (and still do) is the instant anyone finds something that they disagree with or think that a user "should" agree with, it becomes a reportable offence.

This board made it very clear that no action was going to be strong enough until TNT cleared the lookup. I believe the matter should have only been between the person who objected to the lookup, the user and TNT.

Obviously some of the people here did send nmails to the user and apparently he didn't respond in a positive way. But how do any of us know exactly what was said to this person?

PPT (general chat) is a great place to discuss, chat, help out or just have a good whinge about Neo - but I feel really strongly about these kinds of topics where usernames are included. It can lead to a lot of mis-interpretation.

Wait a second here. You saw a flashing background that gave you a headache, and then you SHOWED IT TO YOUR EPILEPTIC MOM. All I can ask is, why? Were you trying to see if it worked or something?

Here's my two cents. You can't just ban things because they might cause problems for a small minority of people. Just buy your codestone or whatever, and get out. It's like that school where they banned any kind of peanut butter product because of one girl who was allergic to it. You can't expect people to accomodate you. I agree that the flickering is REALLY annoying, but it's his shop. He has a right to be annoying. If you're so opposed to it, click the back button and go to the next shop on the list.

Daze, normally I'm with you -- I get annoyed when I come here and see people asking if some (usually innocuous and not actually reportable, just annoying) thing is against the rules, therefore causing a lot of lurkers and well-meaning but misguided PPTers to report the person. However, in this case I have to agree that yes, it is reportable, because it can cause violent reactions in some people (before they have a chance to close the window or hit the back button). And I don't see a problem with people reporting the lookup, because they all knew the kid wouldn't be frozen, just have his lookup cleared -- and this was the quickest way to have that done. People also did try to talk to him, but he obviously didn't care (I know we've no idea what people said in their neomails, but I can't see the generally well-spoken, polite people here being rude to him, can you?).

So... yeah. I think you're making a great point, but it doesn't apply here. It's kinda like you're just picking this thread to express your frustration with the whole practice of asking here about specific users, and it might be better to wait and pick a more suitable battle, you know?

theonlysaneone, I suggest you read up on the peanut butter allergy before throwing it around as support for your theory. Peanut allergies are deadly. And, under Federal Law, schools MUST accomodate people with disabilities. A person with a serious allergy, such as peanut butter, is considered disabled under Federal Law. And if the person so wants, they can request that all peanut butter be banned in their school. And the school has to accomodate them. Same with latex products. My daughter's school does not allow any latex in the building whatsoever, because a child in the school is severely allergic to latex. The law protects that child, so if the school wants its Federal funding, it will accomodate that child's disabilities.

There is a big difference between a gaudy background and one that flashes at a perfected timed speed, with just the right colors and intensity of colors, to produce a photosensitive reaction. The same would apply to music in a person's shop. Paris Hilton, though some might consider her to be a horrible singer, is allowed. However, a high-pitched blast that could cause people to go deaf would definitely not be allowed by Neopets.

But, it sure seems that some of you just can't seem to put yourselves in others' shoes. I hope you never experience a migraine that makes you vomit. Simply because you went to a website that you have gone to for three years, daily, without any problems whatsoever.

A heartfelt thank you to everyone who was able to put themselves in our shoes and see the point that a few of us with photosensitivity were trying to make.

EDIT: Cranberry, you know me too well.

Sorry if it seems that way - I am not picking this thread for any agenda of mine and I feel slightly offended that I should "pick a more suitable battle".

I felt I was offering the other side of the coin in a calm, rational way. I didn't realise I needed to adjust my personal beliefs depending on what the topic is.

Unfortunately, people coming into this thread late, didn't see the many posts that were deleted. It wasn't so nice earlier.

Those posts were mostly just two irritating feuding newbies, though... I saw all of them (I reported many of them to Scott). I've been following this thread from the beginning, and I agree, it was pretty bad there for a while. But that doesn't make the calm, rational posters wrong.

ETA: Also, if the background was just annoying, I'd definitely be with you on this. But it's actually, legitimately dangerous, so I don't think the people here who were personally affected are out of line in reporting it. And I never accused you of having an agenda -- please don't put words in my mouth.

It's completely okay to be annoyed by people posting others' usernames here and (inadvertently or purposefully) getting people to report them; it annoys me too. But I think it does depend on circumstances, and I guess you don't... so we'll have to agree to disagree or whatever.

The bgs are down now.

For those who are curious:
My notice to the user was as short and polite as I could be after suffering one seizure. I explained to him that he may not be aware that the speed in which his bg changes is dangerous to people who are sensitive, such as people with epilepsy. I kindly asked him to remove the background, because if other epileptics went to his shop or page, they MAY have seizures as well.

Seriously, I don't want this user banned. I want TNT to institute the program that many, many other place on the web use to shorten/lengthen flicker rates on images that have that particular speed. As far as I have read, it's very easy to implement.

I don't believe I'm stomping on the rights of other people here. I don't care if people play rap music talking about how much they want to kill the "*****es and hos", I don't care if they have a foot of moving adoptables on their shop. As my government teacher used to say, "People have their rights. I have the right to punch you. But that right stops once my hand meets your nose." They had a right to have that background until it hit my brain and I hit the floor. There was no way I could have suddenly hit the "back" button, and like many others, my internet is too fast to hit the "stop" button right away. Adblock works for this bg, yes (I had my husband go and do that a little while later), but not for every bg of that flicker rate, unless I find them and block them all (which I really don't want to).

Sorry this is long-winded and stuff, but Daze mentioned a logical and informed arguement and I wanted to chime in. I hope it was as logical as it seemed to me...

psyco chick, your argument is sound and perfectly logical to me.

I just have to thank people who took the time to see my side in all of this. To see psyco chick's side in all of this. Poor thing got so much sicker than I did. I have had more sweet people write me than one could imagine. People who have never had a migraine nor a seizure but could sympathize with the plight of those who of us who had gotten ill yesterday. We were completely innocent, going along doing the same thing we had done for years, and caught completely unawares when it hit us. Like pysco chick said, there was no back button on her seizure nor on my migraine. Not as simple as just buy your codestone and get out of the shop. Wish it were that easy.

The problem with the internet is that it is three steps behind the law. But, disabled-rights and children's groups are attempting to catch up. Anyone wanting to help them catch up, send off a letter or email to the legislative person who represents you. In whatever country you live in. To let them know that this bothers you and ought to be regulated by someone.

That's what I was thinking. Why show your mother something that is more than likely going to make her ill, maybe even induce a seizure