SECONDTHOUGHTS: removing telehubs thoroughly sickens community leader

Coco, he gave me grief. Please don't rewrite history. As a professional writer, you can understand the damage this can cause.

I would describe him as a banned griever, an I a forum antagonist?

Be fair, April. I could name 10 people off the top of my head from these forums who have given me grief I never deserved. And still do. Yet I don't label them "griefer." I think of them as "my enemies." (Which, as I've said before, is a new thing to me.)

The term griefer is not supposed to include people who make you uncomfortable, people who call you names, people who hate your guts, or people you disagree with. Otherwise I would list you at least ten residents here (not you) and call them "griefers." But I don't, because that's not what griefer means.

I am not rewriting history.

Yes, he was in that article.

coco

P.S. The same person who habitually refers to him as a "banned griefer" is the same person who refers to me as a "forum antagonist."

I suppose you take that as gospel "history" as well? Rather than just somebody not magically agreeing with everyone?

Popular opinion shouldn't trump all other criteria. If you think so, let's have a vote on whether all objects should be freely copyable.

In fact, I now propose Lumiere's Law: The robustness of a virtual economy is inversely proportional to the capabilities broadly available to avatars within the simulation.

Add a capability, damage the economy. It will now be harder to make a living selling vehicles. Of course, there may (as I am willing to admit in the present circumstance) be overriding criteria; but popularity is not the last word.

And some people (I suspect most) would prefer the weakest possible economy.

I would rather see teleportation strengthen the economy, by making it only a function of scripted objects. Possibly with some connection to land parcels, so that there is an inherent cost. And shouldn't it be possible to attach scripts to parcels as well as objects -- enter a parcel and it behaves like an attachment!

--Allie

PS. I like Prokofy, and he does provide a service as a land-broker: I bought a parcel from him which has a beautiful view, which hasn't changed for eight months. What's that worth?

So my grief is invalid because you've had what you perceive as worse grief? And you are the only one who is able to give someone the term griefer? This person follewed me around, modified my land and did other things I would say fall under the terminology of griefer. You can't minimize my suffereing. I have never minimized yours.

Prokofy was not in that article. There was a woman in that article, I am assuming you are refering to her. But if we can't refer to her, neither can you. If she wants accolades for that article, she has to take it as she. But we are not refering to her, we are refering to Prokofy. She can't have it both ways.

So Prokofy was not in Fortune Magazine, period.

P.S. I am refering to him as a banned greifer, again am I a forum antangonist?

No I do not take the gospel history. I am speaking from personal experience. Stop ignoring that. I always thought you were fair Coco.

Currently, the group tools work like [...]

1. All officers[...] are equal in rights and privileges.
2. All funds taken in by the group from vendors, land sales, and dwell circulate equally to all officers and members
3. Any officer can totally screw any other officer by selling all the group's land to himself for $0 and then reselling it behind the other officers' back.
4. Any member can flip an officer recall on an officer, even if he paid for the land.
5. No member has the right even to return a prim in their way, much less put in music on their parcel within a group.

[...] [This can] lead to one officer screwing another by stealing his land; or [,,,] one member screwing up the entire group and freezing it with a rogue officer recall, and installing a non-investing officer in to take over the group.

The [...]current tools so discourage risk-taking and investment that they constitute a serious hobble on the game.

[...], by making the land "everybody's land in the group" the group tools encourage an attitude of entitlement, which, when pressed to its worst form, leads to "therefore if it is anybody's I'll grab it for myself."

[...] even though some people might contribute more by a purchase price, or more in tier, the land is "everybody's" and can be stripped away from that investor by other officers or by rogue members triggering officer recall.

Group tools were meant to be used benignly by groups of well-meaning [...] [people]. It wasn't meant to be this way -- robbing people of their land or investment or tier. Yet...so often that has happened or attempts at it have happened that make people scared to form groups, scared to pool tier, scared to cooperate.
[...]

Groups matter. They matter because they are just as much building blocks of this world as prims, although few people are willing to spend the time on them they deserve.

What I would advocate is a changing of the group functions and a new perception of them as functions, not roles, and not types of groups. This way, anyone, whether a landlord setting up tenants, or a king setting up his serfs, or an artist setting up his collaborators, or a dom his subs, could use the group tools for whatever they like.

Here's the list of functions that would then be toggled:

o Founds Group, Pays $100
o Names Group
o Invites Members
o Expels Members
o Invites Officers
o Expels Officers
o Names Titles
o Pays Purchase Price of Land
o Pays Tier
o Names Land and Describes Land
o Puts Land in Find Places
o Sets Landing Point
o Returns Prims
o Parcels Land
o Sets Music/Video
o Sells Land
o Purchases Land
o Takes Land Out of Group
o Announces Events
o Makes Proposals for Votes
o Sends Group IMs
o Deeds Objects
o Collects and Distributes Income
o Collects and Distributes Dwell
o Terraforms and Landscapes

These 24 functions would be mixed and matched up by the founder or founders -- the first thing the original founder did if he wanted would be to click off the "founder" toggle for 2 other people or the "officer" or "member" title and then toggle every permission he'd like them to have. While it might seem some work at the beginning, it will be a huge boon for a club to be able to have members that can just return prims, or just set music, or just deed created objects, or have the full range of permissions if they wish.

Prokofy was not in that article. There was a woman in that article, I am assuming you are refering to her. But if we can't refer to her, neither can you. If she wants accolades for that article, she has to take it as she. But we are not refering to her, we are refering to Prokofy. She can't have it both ways.

So Prokofy was not in Fortune Magazine, period.

Yes, he is in the article. Maybe the two of you don't like referring to people by their preferred gender, but it has always been my policy.

Yes, he is in the article. Maybe the two of you don't like referring to people by their preferred gender, but it has always been my policy.

coco

Yes, he is in the article. Maybe the two of you don't like referring to people by their preferred gender, but it has always been my policy.

coco

Prokofy was not featured in Fortune. That's the truth.

Best. Thread. Ever.

My sources tell me that Prokofy was interviewed for a yet to be published issue of Fortune.

But my sources are often very frightened of being outed...

So we will have to be patient and see what the future brings.

If you review my posts you will find that I do INDEED refer to people by their preferred gender, including Prokofy Neva whom I always refer to as "he" or "him." I know *I* am a woman and am proud to be referred to as such. Anshe appears comfortable with her womanhood. I'm not aware of how the third woman in that Fortune article feels about it, perhaps she should post it.

My earlier question was about Linden Policy, not our policy. If the third woman in the Fortune article makes her preference known, will the Lindens enforce it? Is this a case of "wanting their cake and eating it too?"

He is not in the article. There is no such thing as preferred gender. It was my understanding that Prokofy does not want to be known as that woman. If we are talking about Prokofy, he is not in that article. If we are talking about the woman, she is in the article.

Come on Coco. We're not talking about perceptions, we are talking truths. As a professional writer, you should understand the difference.

What I don't understand is if Prokofy wants to be recognized as being listed in Fortune, why didn't he appear in the article? You can't ask us to separate the two and then blend them when you want the fame. It just isn't the truth.

Prokofy was not featured in Fortune. That's the truth.

OK, I understand now, you were just playing with me, and you are just playing with all this. I thought you seriously were unaware about who was in that article.

coco

P.S. There is such a thing as a preferred gender, April. We have several cases of that very thing on these forums, and other cases I know of myself which are only known to a few people.

Cocoanut,

Just out of curiousity, why are the other people in the article referred to by their SL names and avatar genders, but Prokofy isn't? If it is such an imperative, why is Prokofy's SL name nowhere to be found in the article?

As I understand it, he gave his rl name, and gave them permission to use it, and the others did not. But he expected them to use his avatar name and business name as well, and was upset that they didn't.

coco

OK, I understand now, you were just playing with me, and you are just playing with all this. I thought you seriously were unaware about who was in that article.

coco

P.S. There is such a thing as a preferred gender, April. We have several cases of that very thing on these forums, and other cases I know of myself which are only known to a few people.

No Coco, there are transgendered people who identifiy with being another gender. But this is a completely different case. The subject in question is clearly a specific gender in SL and another in RL. In this case this person has let the rl be known, but when it is referred to, people become ballastic. It's just silly word play, not gender preference.

P.S. It is an insult to people with gender identification issues to bring this point up. One is clearly not the same as this instance. In gender identification issues, they usually identify witn only one in both SL and RL, not switch back and forth and use the point to beat innocent people over the head with.

I'm not going to argue this with you. In all games, and irl, if a person wants to be treated as female who is really male, etc., I am happy to do so.

coco

As I understand it, he gave his rl name, and gave them permission to use it, and the others did not. But he expected them to use his avatar name and business name as well, and was upset that they didn't.

coco