Consistent Message: SL is/isn't a game

And nowhere did I say you said that.

I've been researching this phenomenon of forum bullying. That will help me in combatting it.

coco

Well then when you are addressing someone specifically, stop implying that they said a certain thing by including it in what you are saying to them.

I'm sorry, that was in a P.S., and I didn't think it would be attributed to you.

coco

If you think that's bad, Cocoanut calls me out for saying things in threads I've never even posted in. It's a little unnerving, especially during melt down posts.

That is because you have been so mean to her that she knows you were thinking it, even if you didn't post

Lol, Cristiano.

I'll have to speak to you inworld about some of this.

coco

Uh oh. Ok.

Nay, nay, it's always a reply to remarks made by Jaunai or Nolan. So it's because I'm a cerebrate in the Noljuabran collective overmind, thus a remark made by one of us may be ultimately attributed to any of the others.

That Jauani is snarky as hell. He has nice teeth, though.

Last year I played Monopoly.

Last year I participated in Second Life.

Last April the IRS taxed me on my earnings from Second Life.

They did not tax me because I obtained both Park Place and Boardwalk.

You all wanna play the dictionary game? Wanna pick and choose the entry that best suits your argument?

Let us hearken back about 700 years...

"contest played according to a set of predefined rules", circa 1300.

Contest eh? Now I understand the whole FIC thing...

omg Nolan, stop posting the things I want to say! No fair!

What follows is the perspective of a person new to SL, who doesn't know any of the people on this thread, in game or out of game.

I think that SL falls comfortably within the realm of online games, and also within the loosely defined concept denoted by the word "game." Jake Reitveld was right to cite a dictionary definition. It was pertinent here. Anyone who insists on a more narrow definition for the word needs to cite some sort of authority for that.

It bothers me that the Lindens want to call SL "... a platform that is used to create content, socialize and network and allow residents to monetize their efforts by selling their content and/or services."

That just sounds really unattractive to me, especially the part about creating content and selling it and services. I don't know, it just seems kind of cold, and makes me wonder if I want to hang around SL much longer. Perhaps it is not the absence of the word "game" that bothers me so much, so much as it is the absence of other words like "play" or "entertainment," or "relax," or "fun."

I visit online games to seek play, entertainment, relaxation, enjoyment. For me in SL, that includes the fun of playing around with building, texturing, or scripting. I suppose to someone else, the same activity would be called content creation, and it could then be "monetized," whatever that means, exactly. It wouldn't bother me if others treat it seriously, as long as they don't prevent me from having some of my own fun, in the process.

However, if the proprietors of SL have a view of this place, that is primarily business-oriented, and it is really about helping people make real money selling one other goods and services, then I don't think I want to be here. Well, I expect the Lindens to be about business, since they are running one. But I'm not very interested if their primary offering to me is a business platform. I'd much rather play a game.

I think the concerns of Catherine Cotton and Cocoanut Koala are valid, and those individuals should be treated with respect. I don't see that happening in this thread. Instead, I see a rather disturbing display of bullying by a number of people. I can completely understand why both Catherine and Cocoanut have been driven to yelling in frustration. They've made some good points, expressed some valid concerns, but they're simply being dismissed, and condescended to. No one else has to agree with them, just treat them with respect.

You are supposed to pay taxes on your winnings from a game show, golf tournament or gambling, too. Turning lindens into poker chips which can be exchanged for real dollars didn't take it out of the gaming arena.

Indeed. Good thing some of us won't report you for them....

I think you are missing some very important things...

1) Jake picked one entry from many out of a dictionary. Mine has no less than 16! Most of them talk about a contest. This is why posting dictionary definitions is silly. I could "win" just about any semantic debate by picking and choosing which entry best suits my needs.

2) NO ONE had come down on Coco or Cat for calling it a game. Virtually 100% of those debating them have said it bothers them not if they wish to call it a game. What people are set off by is the speaking for everyone crap, the "I am so abused crap", and the irony of the want to CENSOR people for disagreeing with them. Your join date tells me that you probably don't know much of the history which brings us to this point in these discussions. These SAME people have screamed about "the right to individual thought" and "free speech" to no end, yet they want to decide who gets to say what!

You'd have to find them first, Pendari.

I've been meaning to say, Margaret, I have enjoyed your last three posts to the max.

coco

I have them stored. I'm a forum freak remember.

You win!

Lovely how you chose to ignore the other points I made. Get what ya can! The difference is, of course, those things you listed are things which people do for RL income (that which Cat is SO against). Most online games declare in their ToS that you're not supposed to sell game money or items for RL money - that is because they are supposed to truly be games. There is no such stipulation in SL's ToS. In fact, Philip has said on CNN that people regulary sell L$ to make RL$ - they encourage it! They are happy about GOM, where game developers generally frown upon selling currency or items.

Hey, can I get an invite to Doers? Then I could argue because of loyalty too!

So who at Linden Labs died and made you moderator?

Last time I checked, the people you named for attacking you are still on the forums, still in-world. The Lindens are not stupid. If your accusation merited a response, they would have been banned ages ago.

So, in a nutshell, you are the one making personal attacks. What makes you special?

You say it's an attack, the Lindens disagree. You say it's a game, the Lindens do not.

Who's right? You? I think not. Just because you say it, does not make it so.

I am going to wish you away into the cornfield!

*places index fingers on temples, making small, circular motions, concentrates*

*bam!*

You are now in the cornfield!

Oh goodie!

I've now been around long enough to have "history."

In the past, when as a newer player I went to the defense of people getting piled upon for no good reason, I was told there was a "history" I was unaware of, and the inference was, if I just knew that "history," and how horrible those people really were, then I'd jump on the pile, too.

In fact, there are a number of people present in this very thread who to this day keep harking back to the past, trying to convince me to jump on top of that pile. There are people who won't speak to me because I don't hate the people on the forums they hate.

It is because I won't jump on it - and ONLY because of this - that I am on the bottom of the same pile.

Now an objective new player is being told that he just doesn't understand the "history." I've been wondering when the "history" argument would get applied to me. If this is a movie, isn't this where I came in?

As time goes on, there are going to be more and more objective new players, and few of them are going to be glad to take your word for it regarding "histories," just as I refused to take your word for it regarding "histories."

As time goes on, more posters will agree with me that these forums are for all of us, each and every one of us, to post on and give our opinions on - without fear, harrassment, belittlement, or intimidation. More of them will be speaking up, too.

Here, from the TOS:

"Please challenge opinions, state your own and enjoy the discussion, but do not cross the line into personal attacks and insults because you will risk having your Second Life account suspended or banned."

coco

History is only ok if it's me, claiming I have been treated badly in the past. Then it's open season baby!

From now on, the only acceptable usage of the word "game" is for referring to hunting quarry.

Someone with 2,000 posts under their belt in 6 months certainly has a history in these forums. That "history" is both relevant and germaine to understanding how people interact with one another. I always find it interesting when history is cast off on one hand, but then it is used as an example of a pattern of behavior when it is convenient. Ultimately, people reading the forums draw their own conclusions - something none of us, including you, can speak to with any kind of accuracy. That also includes not being able to speak for what most feel or will do. It is all in the eye of the beholder.

Stop being my alt, it is freaking me out lol.

Yes, I do have that kind of a history, Cristiano, as do many.

I'm talking about the "history" that's supposed to convince you to get on the bandwagon of marginalizing and bullying someone else.

It doesn't convince me; will NEVER convince me (I like to make up my own mind); and will convince fewer and fewer new posters in the future.

It's the piling on that is the problem. "History" is merely an excuse for the piling on. And the piling on contains personal attacks of an utterly vile nature.

That is what is going to end.

coco