RAC update...

the RAC was instituted as a direct result of Prok/Anshe's nonstop politicking. It's silly.

It doesn't have a set agenda, as I've said maybe three times before in the forums.

It's meant as an unofficial townhall where regular residents voice their opinions of what is important to them in SL, not as yet ANOTHER sounding board for the few folks who can bang out 100 words a minute 24 hours a day (ie the forum).

If I had time, I'd be enforcing this more, but i don't have the time, nor the inclination to spend the majority of my limited free time corralling a group that's obviously not really wanted by the community at this time.

Maybe next semester.

LF

fell asleep while summarizing. We did post the whole thing so nothing would be left out... after the 3 hours work to post and color code I ran out of steam and hoped each person would summarize their own part.

One time when I worked retail, a customer came in to pick up an item they ordered.

Misreading a note, I told them it was not ready yet.. then found out... a breath later that in fact it was ready.

But somehow they got so mad at the IDEA of the item being late, nothing else mattered, and I got yelled at for minutes.

Seem these meeting go the same way with people being rude to people who are actually agreeing. Just read the transcript and you can spot it.

It's like people WANT people to disagree so they can have an argument. Sorry that's two doors down.. this is abuse.

Eh, people like drama.

That is why this forum is popular in the first place, is it not?

I think a good antonym for drama has to be ...

RESULTS

has anyone looked at the voting pages?

What the heck are you talking about?

You quoted me and then said all this. All this has nothing to do with anything I said, or anything I am thinking.

I said I thought it was funny that Prok ends up being a primary spokesperson for RAC. THAT IS ALL. Do you not find any humor or irony in that, or do just me and Ellie think that's funny?

I haven't argued ANYTHING in RAC. All I do there mostly is sit with my mouth shut. I'm perfectly amenable to working with any group which has goals that I like because I am civic-minded about my games.

I didn't say ANYTHING AT ALL about the meeting not being attended by others, or yell about ANYTHING. I forgot about it myself, being as I rarely get on the game during the day.

I personally have NO PROBLEM with people not being able to attend everything.

In another of my groups, Concerned Residents, when I do speak up, it is generally to CUT PEOPLE MORE SLACK. For example, when members were confused about when to vote, I was the only one (I think, maybe one of two) who wanted to extend the vote by another hour; I mean, big deal. I was outvoted.

When the Concerned Residents group started talking about requirements for voting - such as attending a certain number of meetings (not a bad idea) or staying at said meetings for a certain period of time (getting into kinda ridiculous territory there) I said that this was going to be trickly and hard to do. Again, my saying that was largely ignored.

If there is anyone who is patient and tolerant with all these things, it is me. I would never dream of yelling at someone behind a counter because they are late on things. I never yell at waiters or ANYBODY. I do my best to make sure their day is going well, in fact. I don't care who they are - postmen, waiters, sales clerks, bank tellers, anybody. Even the guys who come for this blankety-blank cable that never works, and the ones I call on the phone, NEVER do they get ANY sort of grief or diatribe from me about it. I must be the single most patient cable customer they HAVE.

But I said those things in Concerned Citizens because I'm not into this thing about everybody having to attend everything. Groups generally have enough people to represent them at meetings without requiring that anyone specific attend each and every one. In this case, with RAC, Prok was there, and some others. And while we are on the topic, I further feel it is exceedingly poor form to stand around on these forums and try to say, yeah, he was there, but, you know, he sucked, let's give the award to the others who were there. I mean, come ON.

If you are saying I was rude in a meeting, show me where. I have had no intentions of being rude, and I'm pretty sure I never WAS rude, considering I don't speak much at all in meetings.

I don't know why you felt the need to quote ME and then say all the stuff you did, as if I had done all those things, because to my knowledge I have not. Why are you saying all these bad things about me?

coco

P.S. Just somebody from RAC come in here and say that I have been any kind of trouble-making in it, because I have NOT and I resent any kind of report here that I have been, because it is purely NOT TRUE.

Enforcing what?

And are you saying the community doesn't want RAC?

coco

I don't think RAC was set up to "counteract" anyone, but to give others a voice.

The unfortunate thing about the meeting was that it was set up in a time spot to accommodate the European community which unfortunately couldn't make it. I tried to attend but I was at work in the break room which only has dial up so I couldn't participate.

ReallyRick was more instrumental, I feel, in representing RAC viewpoint then Prok. While I hesitate to mention him here, because he can't comment, just talked as he usually does.

I think everyone is trying to do the best they can and trying to make it a one upmanship or be "amused" by anything that happens kind of belittles the whole process. There's been enough belittling here. Let's move forward.

For the record, Lordfly Digeridoo is doing his best.


For my part, I travel not to go anywhere, but to go. I travel for travel's sake. The great affair is to move.
Robert Louis Stevenson

I agree that Lordfly is doing his best, given rl concerns. And he never intended to be "the" person for the group anyway; all he did was offer to act as secretary cause someone had to. No one should expect him to do everything; he was clear on that from the start. I certainly never expected him to, and no group can really work if only one person does all the work.

I agree that it's important to move forward.

As for Prok, I believe he was just in attendance as an interested sort-of-audience member. Seeing the irony in what happened is not intended in any way as "belittling."

Prok has an alt in RAC, but he had no intention of coming to the meeting with the Lindens in order to represent RAC. That, combined with the fact that he can't speak for himself on these forums, is why I think it is bad form to marginalize him in any way here. He was apparently very careful to try not to speak for the group. That says GOOD things about him, not bad things. It's good form to give credit where credit is due.

coco

I think it's better not to say anything. If you can't bring out the whole story, why just bring out the "GOOD". That is why the forums and in world are so connected. One can't exist without the other and trying to operate one in the vacuum of the other hogties all involved. In this instance, it's best to say nothing at all because there are other factors and we discussed these inworld, that can't be brought up here. Let's not try to rewrite history. Come on now.


For my part, I travel not to go anywhere, but to go. I travel for travel's sake. The great affair is to move.
Robert Louis Stevenson

Well, April, I must be living in an alternate universe or something, because I understood your post above about as well as I understood all the ones about the economy I read today in "Land and the Economy," which is to say, not at all, lol.

coco

I'm sorry you didn't understand my post. I apologize for not being more clear.

If we can't talk about the bad things Prok does because he's not here to defend himself, why would it be fair to talk about the "so called good things"? If I didn't agree they were good, I couldn't point out why they are bad because he wouldn't be here to defend himself. This leads to a false perception of Prok's behavior because anyone reading the forums would assume he does all these "good things" but none of the other things are mentioned because he's not here to defend himself.

This is the problem with banning someone from the forums but not from in world. They still affect what happens in the forums and makes it difficult to discuss what they are continuing to do. There were things Prok did at the last two meetings that I don't agree with, but yet I can't discuss them because he is not here to defend himself.

You and I discuss some of what he was doing in an IM. Perhaps you have forgotten that, I can remind you in a personal message, but again I am not allow to discuss here because he is not here to defend himself.

You have, in the past, indicated that the two entities, Forums and In-world, are separate. But as you can see here and now, they are not. You want to congratulate Prok on his good behavior, while at the same time ignoring his bad behavior. That is not a balance view.

This is the hogtie I was refering to.

Is this any clearer. If not, I will try again. Please forgive me, I am not a professional writer as you are. Just a concerned member of the community.


For my part, I travel not to go anywhere, but to go. I travel for travel's sake. The great affair is to move.
Robert Louis Stevenson

I wasn't bringing him up at all. Others were bringing him up. And, though I didn't go back to see exactly who and what all, I do remember people saying yeah he was there but he sucked and these other people who were there didn't. I'm just saying, he's not here - he was there - that was ironic - he did the best he could.

coco

Again, I'm not going to get into, but I think it's better not to mention him at all. And just because someone else did, doesn't make it right. I'm sure you've heard that from your kids.

You have to admit this is the problem when you do not consider the two entities connected. Because they are inherently connected. The Forums and in world are two parts of the same being. Which is why this partial ban does not work.

Can you understand that?


For my part, I travel not to go anywhere, but to go. I travel for travel's sake. The great affair is to move.
Robert Louis Stevenson

Again, I'm not going to get into, but I think it's better not to mention him at all. And just because someone else did, doesn't make it right. I'm sure you've heard that from your kids.

You have to admit this is the problem when you do not consider the two entities connected. Because they are inherently connected. The Forums and in world are two parts of the same being. Which is why this partial ban does not work.

Can you understand that?


For my part, I travel not to go anywhere, but to go. I travel for travel's sake. The great affair is to move.
Robert Louis Stevenson

I was trying to back up your idea on how the groups where really not counter to each other. My example was only meant to display that people can become very short sited on details and lose the big picture.

I really don't quite understand this obsession with not criticising Prok. He behaved apallingly here, and so forfeited the right of self-defence here entirely through his own actions.

He has often been discussed, and unless I missed it, Jeska has never closed a thread because it contained Prok criticism. From my memory of how Prok used the forums, I don't think he would even WANT not to be discussed, positively or negatively.

The ludicrous result of this self-imposed criticism ban is now becoming even more apparent, as it seems people are logically deducing that it should extend to not even praising Prok. I ask you ? What a mighty Prok-shaped shadow this casts across the Forum. Truly he-who-shall-not-be-named.

Remember, he is reading these forums, and still has friends here who will defend him if they think he is unjustly maligned.

As proof, when Ellie met him in world for the first time a few days ago, he immediately triple-rated her with a message clearly related to a recent forum posting of mine. Which admittedly went a bit far, and which I regret. (The one about the cutting of fore-arms ....gulp...flinch). Looking back I don't know what came over me. Anyway, he negrated me, and fair enough. If it made him feel better, why should I object ? Proof he reads here.

Well I'll stick my neck out (in both directions), and see what happens:

Prok's past behaviour in forum was an absolute symphony of arrogance, insults and abuse directed to other innocent posters. It dragged down the tone of the whole place, and must have driven many valuable posters away. His ban was richly deserved and long overdue.

Now, on the otherhand, even during the bad time in the forums no-one could deny that amongst all the vicious paraphernalia, Prok was coming up occasionally with powerful, intelligent, well argued issues.

The latter abilities were again visible at the RAC meeting. Several times I found issue-wise that we were in close agreement. Even more, what annoyed him, was annoying me too. I caught a glimpse, through our mutual hostility, of something we shared. Though, on some fundamentals, big disagreement too ( eg "compensation".

And in the Philip meeting. You only have to read the transcript to see that he behaved impeccably. There was no attempt to grab a leading role. He was pushed forward by others. Tried to decline. Even pointed out how peculiarly inappropriate it was. And that he was not properly a member, and didn't really intend to be. Who could have asked for more ?

So there it is. Prok is a mixture of extremes. I can even see how Coco may have come to love him.

Doubtless he is a delight to his close friends with his intelligence, clarity and drive.
But to those outside this circle, he can be, and has been, a ruddy nightmare of deviousness, hostility, aggression, and paranoia.

It has not escaped my notice that in Hindu mythology, this is exactly how Krishna will play with you, and how you should play with Krishna. (Don't know about the paranoia, but what-the-heck, He loves to make things interesting.) Krishna and you, playing reciprocally all the characters in the game of life. To this view a man without enemies is as diminished as one without friends, and we have a duty to take both roles (though not perhaps in equal proportions ).

Not a normal, western viewpoint is it ? Or perhaps we honor it by proxy at the geo-political level, rather than at the personal level. A deficit at one level requires rebalancing at the other.

What a thought...............Iraq, anyone ?

I have seen several Linden admonishments about bashing Prok when he can't respond. Unfortunately I can't find any right now. But it is my opinion that it should go both ways.

For my part, I travel not to go anywhere, but to go. I travel for travel's sake. The great affair is to move.
Robert Louis Stevenson

Oh, okay! Cause I think they aren't. (Else I would feel funny belonging to more than one of them.)

coco

No, I don't consider them connected in the way you do, and consider this idea of banning someone from the game because they are banned from the forums to be absolutely horrid and completely anti-intellectual.

However, I do get your point now, the one in your first paragraph above, and will try to remember that and follow that advice whenever possible!

coco

P.S. April is right - I've seen those admonishments, too.

Thank you Coco.

/me Hugs Coco



For my part, I travel not to go anywhere, but to go. I travel for travel's sake. The great affair is to move.
Robert Louis Stevenson

*ahem

Prok has some really amazing ideas, as well as plans and understanding for solving problems. He seems to have learned that how he phrases it and how he addresses others really matters.

It's rare for anyone to both know what is wrong AND how to fix it but that does not give anyone a free ticket past other's voices, ideas, or feelings.

Tolerance is supposed to include being able to harmonize with those who don't agree with you, but I feel we need to see an intermediary step of just getting people not to shut out slightly different variants of their own idea.