Disturbing Sign

it's about more than just a sign.

it's about nurturing a fellow players ability to build vs berating and discouraging them.

it's about getting over ones Oh! So Talented! Self, and appreciating the game and others for what they are and what they could become.

this is why i'm a cynic. because in my world, aces would never have had to start this thread.

For someone rushing to work you had alot to say...lol

However to answer you question, why does any thread go as far as it does? Because, everyone is different and has different ways of looking at a situation and want their opinions heard.

I may be alone in this, but I feel this is "omg its so offensive". And its wasn't even my building. Just out of curiosity LF, honestly, how would you have reacted if someone place that sign on one of your builds? You wouldn't be "omg!! offended!!" ??

Pen, I am giving you the benifit of the doubt hun, however, when a "Leader" of your oganization IE the spokes person that got it started makes idle inane commentary that is basically against human creativity and human judgment. It's hard to seperate the two especially when the signature you have states:


Her commentary is not only a slap in the face of your fellow people in that group but also to you as its saying she speaks for you. It also gives people the view that the organization's (Since she is a spokes person) view is the same as a whole.

Im glad that you posted that your view is sperate from hers and to be honest Id be happy to see the rest of Neualtenburg step up and take a stance for or against on this. Why because as long as a tyrant continues to speak in such a manor for your organization your going to have a bad taste left in the mouth of others and I know your a much more intelegent person than to let that assumption lie dormant for long.

Pen to give you an impression that most people percieve. It kinda goes like this.

Ulrika = Neualtenburg

Ulrika spouts inane comentary about political justification of "Ugly Builds"

Thus most think

Neualtenburg spouted inane comentary about political justification of "Ugly Builds"

Thus anyone in Neualtenburg supports the above commentary.

Why is this its human nature to associate the political views of a party based on the singular responces of its spokes person.

Thus I see two things that could possibly happen to rectify this basic assumption.

#1 if the people in the party step up and speak their opposition to the tryanical commentary it will perchance change the mind of the masses views on that organization.

#2 dispose of the Tyrant and reaffirm the organzational stance against the aforementioned commentary thus seperating them from the views of the tryant entirely.

Pen you have taken the step to openly disagree and thats eases the pain a bit. However your only one amongst how many in that organization?

I made a wise decision to "Call you out" in the previous thread as I knew you wouldnt let it go by without retort. Id rather see the rest of your organization refute the commentary made by its spokes person and for that matter maybe even have it rethought as to whom your spokes person should be because from what I see her commentary is not condusive to what your groups organizational goals are.

Sincerely, Shadow Weaver

PS still luv ya hun..

I don't even think who's land its on is part of the issue.

If my build makes full use of my plot and borders yours, then you can still hang a sign on my wall to all intents and purposes, and still have it on your land.

As for expressing a point of view? Hmm. Well, doesn't that somewhat depend on what it is, assuming it doesnt outright break the ToS? If my neighbor on my hypothetical land plot above hangs a sign on my build (on his land) saying 'man, this is a seriously fucking ugly build' then I'm going to be pissed. Yeah, he's entitled to his opinion, but what does he gain by making it public in this way, apart from a somewhat uncomfortable atmosphere in the neighborhood?

If it were against my property, I'd prolly IM him first and ask him to remove it. If that didn't work I'd ask a Linden if they thought it was a fair expression, especially in the way that it's respresented as some sort of organisation actioning against the freedoms of other players. And I'd abide by whatever ruling they gave. But if he left it there, I'd turn my building into light prims, have them cycle through multiple colors and textures several times a second and show him what ugly looks like. Put the sign into context for him.

As I've already said in this thread, I believe no one should be able to tell you what to do with your own land ... but even that has to have boundaries, such as being deliberately offensive. And I think you have to recognise that too, Lordfly, while advocating the same 'I can do anything on my land' stance that I have. I mean, would you like it if I put a billboard on my land saying 'Lordfly Digeridoo can't build for shit?'. It's not a personal attack, it's an opinion, just like the one expressed in the sign in the first post. But it's still not reasonable behaviour, even if it's not strictly against the ToS.

Btw, it is not actually my opinion that you can't build for shit

This right here is most of the problem. People assuming that Ulrika is our "spokes person". No. Kendra and Ulrika are the project leaders that got the project underway. We currently have a provisional government in place while we iron out some details (Talen is also in the provisional government). Within a month, this provisional government will be replaced with the government that we have been working on forming. We are in a transition phase right now. That said, we still have *no* official spokesperson. We are individuals who are free to speak our minds on issues throughout SL just as anyone else is. While Neultenburg's government will extend only to those participating in the project, we are all still very much members of SL as a whole. I won't squelch your right to speak, you should not squelch ours based on your misperceptions.




If others want to discuss this issue, I'm sure they will. Though I think Talen and Kendra are the one most likely to wander into the General forums. Just because someone doesn't speak up in this thread, doesn't change anything that I have pointed out. Not everyone has the skin to deal with what goes on in the forums. If they want to post fine, if not, I'm certainly not going to make them. Individual rights is a big thing on my party platform too. But that is another issue altogether. Don't try to regulate us, and we won't try to regulate you.



*mumble* *grumble* yeah yeah.. I still luv ya too...

Funny, coming from some contributing to the "6 page thread".

As far as Ulrika's contention about clubs, I find extreme irony in the fact it was a club, that which she dislikes, that placed the sign which she is defending:

I find it ironic that ya'll don't agree with the sign's placement --but have no problem tearing away at Neualtenburg as being unwanted and unecessary in public forums?

How is this sign any different?

At any rate the owner of the build can simply return the offending prim.

FWIW --the sign is far uglier than the build it scorns.

I for one have never stated that I think N.berg is unwanted or uneccessary and most others haven't either. As long as your ideas of how SL should be don't spill over and affect the rest of us I will support and fight for your right to do as you see fit with your land.

How would you like it if we started defacing your N.berg builds?

good for you! that is such stupidity.....they must be 12 or something you know? They need some how to not disrespect things books...

I didn't accuse you of such, Nolan --I was commenting on the fact that you found Ulrika's position ironic --and I find the majority opinion of this thread ironic.

For the record --N'burg represents my views as to how N'burg (or similar cities )could be -not should be run --and certainly has zero to do with any idea that SL should be "run" according to those precepts.

I think my point was --I don't see the difference between defacing the concepts behind N'burg and defacing someone else's build.

As far as defacing the builds? As I said --I'd return the offending prims.

Really? I dont see anyone saying Neualtenburg is unwanted or unnecessary? I think there are a lot of people against an enforced player government for all of SL, but I don't think there are too many people that I would construe as saying you can't go play independent player governments in your own space on your own time.

really? I've seen whole threads devoted to exactly that.

that is wierd and just terriable

Oh well. My bad then. Well, I really don't mind you playing government among likeminded people in Neualtenburg, Kendra. Just don't try and take over SL from there... the rest of us dun wanna play that kinda game

And I'd be fairly sure that sentiment holds true for the majority of people here. So you're talking about a small minority with extreme views. Just like this kind of action with the sign is perpetrated by a small minority of people while the majority wouldnt dream of it.

Well since I had just made a statement about irony, and you then followed suit, I drew that conclusion, apparently in error, my apologies.

As far as the part about how SL should be, I really think you folks have a PR problem. One thats core is rooted in the fact that Ulrika started the SDF, N.berg and the fact that she projects things such as player conflict resolution would address the situation with this build. Trying to seperate Ulrika from the basic fundamentals behind N.berg is like trying to seperate the United States from democracy, or Cuba from communism. She speaks the loudest and tends to say things that rile people up. She's your loose cannon, and please don't try to lay the blame on anyone against SL gov't because of a few folks who openly antagonize the projekt.

I think most folks that are anti-government fully support the concepts and in fact even encourage them as long as they remain self contained. Yes, there are a COUPLE of posters who rail against the very principles behind N.berg. Does that make it ok then for people to deface other's builds with profane insults? Do two wrongs make a right?

As far as returning the objects I think that is a fairly obvious course of action, however, should that be the only course of action? Upon failure of dialogue about the issue, should not one bring it to the attention of the community?

What he said

I'm not making a case here for right and wrong --I'm simply pointing out it's the same thing.

Onto the question of governments in SL --I think you misunderstand Ulrika --she's not for the same exact government for all of SL --she's not even for SL being all self-government --she is (as am I) for the experiment to spread to a multi-city approach of different governments with different methodologies --if there are pockets of anarchic resistance left in SL when we are done, we will not seek to root them out and assimilate them.

::::duck:::::

Thank you Nolan you put in words what I tried to earlier.

I have nothing against A Player Run government within the confines of Group or personal Owned Land.

I do have something against it when it spills over to incorporate me involuntarly.


Kendra,

I agree with Nolan's statment about a Loose Cannon and debated that previously with a dear friend that I have a lot of respect for.

Like Nolan Said "NBerg has a PR problem" Clean up the PR and maybe the percieved animosities will diminish and people will understand your Projekt better.

Til that time people seeing the Name will equate it to an overall view point of NBerg and then will summarly associate that view with all the members of the projekt. Its social demographics and Social perception. It may not be true but until the Cannon is silenced from defacing your Ideas and goals this will be something you continue to encounter.

Sincerely, Shadow

Like I said in an earlier post..a Seriously run Government will take seriously experienced council and staff and knowledge of Politics..because Government is Politics..and whomever represents that council will have to have a slick tounge and know what not to say and what to say..when. Kinda like a candidate going up for Election..some may not agree with you but your goal is to make sure the majority do.

See, this is what I honestly don't get. For persons that are so adamant that they remain in control of their SL lives, that they be allowed to speak freely and do freely other than TOS violations, how can you then turn around and suggest that members of a group squelch those same rights for someone else?

To me you just cannot have it both ways. So I continue to stay perplexed.

And therein lies the problem... No specificity about what will ensue - either enroute to that goal, or exactly what that goal actually is.

What gives a small - miniscule even - noisy minority of residents the right to attempt to screw things up for the rest of SL? THAT is what most of us seem to be arguing against - the unknown and the apparent search for power by that cadre.

Seems to me that this happened in a few places in relatively recent history - Munich, Geneva, and even Boston... not all of which wound up as the "visionaries" dreamed. Certainly not as the rest of the world seems to have preferred in any of those cases.

This build is not and probably will not be within the confines of a player ruled area. The fact that Ulrika basically said that if we had a dispute system run by player this could be dealt with without intimidating signage makes one wonder if the end goal is what is in fact being represented.

Being for organized government and then advocating the anarchistic tactic used in this instance is baffling to me.

I would point out that if you placed an offensive sign like that on a building in RL you would be guilty of a crime.

I agree with Jauani about positive reinforcement. I thought that would fall in line precepts behind N.berg? Instead we are hearing one of the founders advocate negative reinforcement.

I know you and Pendari feel like the people behind N.berg are being lumped together.
This was after all Ulrika's brainchild, she did the leg work as far as websites, the concept of the bavarian village with modern accents, etc. It's like seperating George Washington or Thomas Jefferson from the US, or Lenin or Stalin from the Soviet union, you see where I am going? I would also point out that you seem to be lumping people together in return because of the posts of Korg and Ace. Remeber that about 80% of those polled in a simple yes/no poll voted against player government, and that 2 people do not represent the voice of such a large contingent.

Pen, no one is saying to take away anyone's right to free speech, we are simply trying to point out why there seems to be a PR problem. You guys are lamenting the fact that folks are getting ruffled feathers over this issue and seem to view the projekt in a singular sense, and we are suggesting that you may need to look within, rather than without.

I understand what you are saying Nolan. At the same time, there is nothing stopping me from getting out there and posting my opinions on whatever issue. Just because I tend to be more, I don't know, I guess I don't ruffle feathers. But people don't go "oh wow! there must be some good in Neaultenburg because here is a person I really admire that is making posts about something else. I wonder if she carries that same attitude in the project. I bet she does! Let me go check it out!" You see? hehe.. I guess I mean that people are so hung up on their opinions about one person, they forget all the other people that just happen to be involved in the project and are out here talking about issues as much as any others.

Should I stop making posts? I have as much right to promote the Neualtenburg project as Ulrika does. Heck, I even have it in my sig line. I am as much a spokes person as anyone in the project. Why then can my words not cancel out another's words? Or vice versa? I'm sure there are those that love Ulrika and can't stand me. Why should I have to hush and she gets to talk?

I dunno. It just seems to me when you try to walk the line of telling someone what they can and cannot post on a public forum (outside TOS violations), you just end up confusing people.

I'd wager to say that the *majority* of those in the Neualtenburg project DO NOT want one player run government throughout the whole of SL. We state this in many threads dealing with a variety of issues. Why are you giving so much power to Ulrika? I'm not chopped liver you know!

Eveyrone on SL has a right to freedom of expression. That sign might be considered such... if it was applied in honest opinion and not with ulterior motives.

HOWEVER... that doesn't mean it's necessarily right. What ever happened with IMing the building owner, making a new friend... and offering recommendations on improving the building? If that doesn't work, then a community "petition" to the building owner (hey, might as well make it fun, eh?).

BUT THAT SIGN, frankly, I don't care how ugly the building was, that sign was even uglier. They'e complaining about an "ugly building" and put up an offensive sign, complete with public obscenity?

You have to wonder about the common sense of some folks.