Disturbing Sign

I agree totally! If it's not the porn shop, it's the giant dance-club box built right to the edge of the property line. I left my old newbie sim, as I was surrounded by clubs. I bought a huge swath of land right at the top of a peak in Seefeld with Linden land bordering two sides of it, hoping for some solitude and beautiful scenery. It was only a matter of weeks before someone put up a 20 meter tall vampire club right in front of my home.

It's funny. Even right next to Neualtenburg in the North East there's a hideous little club built right up against the city wall.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika I completly disagree with what you said and I completly disagree with your motives to do so!

Second Life Social Democratic Faction

edit worded wrong.

I see you disagreeing (typical for you in a forum) and I see the link to the SDF (interested that you might be trying something to say something clever) but I fail to see the connection (wishing you had the made your point clearer).

~Ulrika~

Aww. We better get ourselves a government so we can bully them by getting our personal agendas sanctioned as formal procedures!



Oh god how I wish I owned land bordering Neualtenburg... I'd sure give you something to complain about.

EDIT:

Ulrika I apologize if this reads like I thought you placed the sign, that was not my intention. I have edited this post. For clarity.



Ulrika;

Yes I know I am a loud mouth who always makes a big deal out stuff that shouldn't matter. After all if I would just look the other way life would be so much easier for some ppl who would rather i just dropped dead. Unfortunatly its just not in my nature to look the other way.

That however does not give you the right to speak to me with disrespect. My post was not disrespectful.

The connection via the link I provided is some of the information you have provided concerning how your group wants a SL gov't to work.

http://www.ulrikasheim.org/sdf/

Your actions in this forum) twords another players work that you didn't like is directly related to how your gov't group does operate.

I will provide the parts that got my attention in your page only as it is relevent to this thread.

"In general we support:
Private enterprise, but regulated to protect the interests of workers, consumers, and small enterprise. We believe in ethical capitalism and seek to remove parasitic wealth extraction from the economy through the creation of artisan cooperatives and the use of taxation and regulation to discourage unethical practices."

Is this how you (will) regulate to protect the interests of your workers?
"Environmental protection. We seek to protect the beauty of the sims, maintain open space, and enhance the quality of builds in Second Life through the use of covenants and themes."

There was no covenant, so will that give you have a right to step outside your own rules and display a sign voicing your displeasure?
I must also say however I do agree with your group on many levels, believe it or don't.

Cat

PS: before any of you anti Catherine ppl get your bloody claws into this post remember she asked for specific relevence to the topic and I posted it. So go about your business.

• Posting negative messages on other peoples' properties uncalled for? YES
• Freedom of speech, opinion, and creativity in SL imperative? YES
• Delete/return objects? YES
• Neg rating people? Never leads to any good!

Sorry I have to ask the obvious here;

Is there a;

"Coniston sim residents against ugly buiildings association" ???

I imagine the 'organisation' consists of a single person and was a 'clever' spur of the moment creation for the sign.

If there really is a group for this, then it's essentially condoning harassment right there in the title and the Lindens should step in, IMHO.

Catherine,

Ok I am really lost here. Ulrika did not create the sign in question on this persons build, she stated that when she dislikes a build, she generally neg rates it with a message. What are you completely disagreeing with?

Cristiano;

No I was responding to most of her posts on how she views such things such as this one

"I consider this a grassroots effort to address the problem of ugly builds. Because there are no formalized avenues to address grievances concerning ugly builds, users must employ methods such as the one you described to express their dislike of ugly builds. It is perfectly acceptable and protected as free expression. "

grassroots effort? according to her group page that I also listed above, there is more than a grassroots effort she believes in. I cannot beleive she is defending the actions of someone who would post such a sign. Are you defending her's?

Cat

PS yes Cris I can understand your confusion sorry its late here "did" should of been "said"

Oh, I dunno, Cris. I pretty much disagree with everything Ulrika says as well. I just figure it wouldn't be hugely constructive for me to follow up her every post with 'I think you're talking sh*t, lady'.

But in this case, as far as I understand it Cat explained at length what her disagreement was with - that Ulrika's agenda in wanting SL government is to be able to regulate stuff like this... getting sanctioned mob rule to bully people who make what she considers 'ugly builds'.

And I happen to agree, as I posted earlier, albeit with far more sarcasm; no one is going to tell me what I can and can't do with the land I pay for, and frankly I don't understand the f*cking cheek of people who think they have that right.

Ok, I was taken aback by the "grassroots effort" thing myself. This is not a grassroots effort, it is harassment. It reminds me of the 9/11 memorial thread, where flying planes into buildings was expressing profound political speech, according to Ulrika. Again, sometimes people aren't nearly that clever and forward thinking, they are just contemptible idiots. Calling it otherwise is giving them way too much credit.

Thanks Kris I think I explained it well enough also.

Cat

I happen to agree with you too I was just clarifying what Catherine was referring too, since it did seem she was speaking of the original sign.

I don't think the beginning of this thread is an issue of free speech so much as it is an issue of:

1. Arrogance and self-importance on the part of the group
2. Trespass - in that the sign was placed on someone else's land without their permission
3. TOS violation - see 2

As for Ulrika's response... it's self-evident that she would use such a situation to further her own goals and that there would be a good chance that what she has written previously in the SDF policy statement and what she is saying here would be consistently inconsistent. There is no way that everyone's right to happiness is ensured if a group can enforce an opinion/aesthetic that is not that of the person not in the group. As Ulrika is the person who has assigned herself the position of group/SL leader/SL conscience, it is patently consistent that she would argue here that government would set all things "right" and that "retribution would be had (legally)" and all would be right with the world.

Yet another reason to be against any form of player-run government in SL.

And yet another HUGE nod of agreement in the direction of the "Ritter-meister"

Ulrika,

<<That's a great point Aces! I'll try not to hijack this thread and mention the g-word but if there were formal methods of conflict resolution in place one could address this problem. If the home owner did in fact have a beautiful build they could file suit against the club owner for vandalism. If the build is legitimately ugly a covenant could be negotiated to improve the quality of the build. More likely there exists a compromise somewhere between.>>

To me this demonstrates exactly why such a system would not work. Who the hell is to say whether a building is 'legitimately ugly'. What gives you a right to judge the aesthetic qualities of an object?

When Beethoven's Ninth Symphony first came out, it was roundly condemned by some music critics for its 'ugliness'. Indeed, one of them said that Beethoven's deafness was responsible for this horrendous music, because the composer was clearly unaware of the dreadful sounds he was producing. Perhaps if your hypothetical body were around at the time, they might have negotiated a covenant to improve the quality of the composition.

The problems with governments, especially inworld ones, is that they claim to know what is best for the rest of us.

zugzug,
i completely supporty your right to negrate people for whatever you like. i was only stating my value, which is that as most players are not design or digital art professionals, i will not negatively judge their work aesthetically. keeping this in mind i think most people would be less offended by ugly builds.

myself, i negrate builds that are intentionally ugly, in your face, coercive, or offensive. for example a giant green glowing for sale sign, hate symbols, billboards (although i've let up on that if they are nice).

please don't mistake my comment as questioning your right to negrate. personally, i will negrate someone in all three categories if i find them disagreable enough. i'm questioning whether your reaction to someones ugly building is a little extreme. do you check if they are a noobie? do you check if they are dyslexic? colour blind? first time computer user? republican? you might be committing yourself to actions you yourself do not find justified.

ouch! fire hot!

People have to make ugly builds before they learn to make beautiful ones.

Uh... no. They don't.

There is no such rule in the mysterious "Book of SL Building" that each of us was issued upon agreeing to the TOS and forking over the initial credit card payment.

you missed the fine print korg. it's right under promising your first born and above agreeing to dhrama

LOL I hope your kidding Korg.

You mean YOu didn't get your copy? Sorry, but mine is no mod/no copy/no transfer or I would sell you one for $1000L.

Lol

I also found that disturbing as well