Disturbing Sign

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.

Personally, I negatively rate people with a message such as "you build is hideous". If someone responds to me, I typically explain my position and then remove the negative rating as a courtesy. The point is to apply social pressure to improve the quality of builds.

~Ulrika~

If that's the case, ya'll might as well vote me off the island right now, because I've put up innumerable signs that are "worse" than the current topic's "violation".

Chairman Mao says no! Welcome to Bobland! Chairman Mao says no to ugly clubs and bad spelling! ...

Is it in bad taste?

Does Chairman Mao say no to poor grammar, too? The proper terms are "poor spelling" and "poor taste."

Judge not, lest ye be judged...everyone.

So how is this confusing, She can Play SL anyway she wants to but right now she is imposing her thoughts as they were the thoughts of your organization since she is heralded as the Founder of NBerg.

Actually --Ulrika is speaking AS Ulrika. You're the one imposing N'burg on the subject --BTW --as co-founder of the Neualtenburg Projekt --one might apply equal weight to my words as Ulrika's.

I find more often than not --people are ready to pounce on Ulrika without actually reading her posts --she said it's a grassroots movement. I agree. It is.

She does not, however, imply that it's a good idea. Rather she advocates the building of player based dispute settlement as an alternative. I fail to see the problem with her post, I see more problems with your own.

PLEASE, I am so tired of folks accusing people who see things differently of not reading. Not only is it assumptive it's dismissive in the worst way. Just because someone doesn't interpret things the same way as you doesn't prove they aren't reading or comprehending.

I see the post as; *I told ya so, if we had a system in place SL wide, like Nberg's, they wouldn't have to post 'This one is fucking ugly build'.* Nice tolerance, after all, the group purports to be tolerant then you have a founder condone this.

You two are the founders, you reflect upon your group when you make statements that correlate to its concept. A lot of people have a bad taste in their mouths around the globe with regard to the USA because of the war in Iraq. Same thing goes for the Catholic church and the pedophilia issue.

If I were you I would start looking within rather than blaming those who see the incongruity of the projekt's mission goals and the actions of the founders.

good thing you're not being assumptive.

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.

.
I find more often than not --people are ready to pounce on Ulrika without actually reading her posts --she said it's a grassroots movement. I agree. It is.

Yeah except you're assuming people aren't reading.
I am assuming what seems to be very clear:



How else can this be interpreted?

A) Ulrika is the original founder of Nberg.

B) This land is not within the borders of a player run area.

C) Therefore one can assume that Ulrika thinks it should be.

D) Therefore it is an *I told you so* statement coupled with a justification for intolerant behavior.

E) Ulrika wrote most of the charters for Nberg touting equality and tolerance among other things.

F) See *A*.

I read all of Ulrika's posts quite carefully, and many times agree and many times disagree with her. We have been on opposite ends of many things. In the case of this being a grassroots effort, one sign used to harass a player does not a grassroots effort make - I think that is giving way too much credence to their motivations for doing so. A grassroots effort is about affecting change on a small local scale that brings about a wider change. While in it loosest definition, you could say this player is trying to harass someone into changing their build, thus bringing about change, it seems all they are doing is being a jerk. There are many builds I may or may not like, hell I lived next to a giant black box for ages. However, putting up a sign on their own build crosses a major line of respect and taste, and that is what this thread was originally about.

A) Ulrika is the original CO-founder of Neualtenburg.

B) What's your point?

C) When you ass-ume ---

D) See *C*, or tell me why a Hegelian dialectic is often wrong.

E) Decidedly untrue. The current policies in Neualtenburg are very much a group effort.

F) See *A*

She will play sycophant to anyone to get what she wants.

Yeah, well you assume people aren't reading because they don't agree with your vapid points and self appointed righteousness. Regardless of what you think, your attitude does reflect on the group and you're not going to convince myself or a lot of other folks otherwise especially when you keep at it. You're about as civil as a pit bull trained for fighting. Now tell me how you're from Brooklyn or whatever.. like that has any bearing on anything.

As far as Ulrika and Nberg goes, who do you think you're fooling? She started it. I remember reading as you signed on in the forums. She outlined the project and now the rest of you are helpers. Don't kid yourself. She will play sycophant to anyone to get what she wants.

First you call my girlfriend a moron, now me an ass. How quaint.
This is where my dealings end with you. You have a nice, delusional life.

MY OPINION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR OPINION

Free speach, deal with it.

Argh.

When is it going to end?

We can't put any protest signs on our land now, to express a harmless opinion?

If that's the case, ya'll might as well vote me off the island right now, because I've put up innumerable signs that are "worse" than the current topic's "violation".

Chairman Mao says no! Welcome to Bobland! Chairman Mao says no to ugly clubs and bad spelling!

I look back and see the community more or less tolerating those things back in the day, even getting a mild modicum of support.

Now, suddenly, if it's a negative opinion expressed on your land, you can't say it?

There is such a thing as perceived free speech in SL, you know.

If I had put up a Chairman Mao sign up there instead, it wouldn't even get a negative backlash, because I have the inertia of being here for over a year and a half. But a newbie? Perish the thought. BURN HIM AT THE STAKE.

It's an opinion, expressed on his land, about his neighbor's building practices. As such, HE IS FULLY ENTITLED TO DO IT.

Is it in bad taste? Probably, but so is a Bondage club going up next door to someone's house. Should we be rallying against bondage clubs now? After all, they make my virgin eyes bleed.

Bah.

LF

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..