robin linden's response to hypocrisy thread

What an abominable thing to say.

That is highly insulting and offensive.

I am an officer of this group because *I* agreed to be one.

I am my own person, with my own values, and they have been consistantly the same values since long before I ever joined SL.

coco

Coco - this is not about the fine points - I've read the agenda and I just posted my responses to some of the issues. Some I agree with, others I would need more information to form a solid opinion on, some I find to be a thinly-veiled stab at a particular resident, some I do not support at all.

It is up for debate exactly how much influence A&P have over the group, but my point is all about PERCEPTION. If they wanted to get community support for this group and it's purpose, which from what I've read is not all bad - they certainly should've chosen better words that were less eletist and divisive.

They need better handlers.

Some thoughtful comments, Juro. Valuable input, if you ask me.

coco

regarding you comments on the agenda.

I'm with you on that, Sensarya. And I won't be boycotting anyone either, though I don't buy much anyway, lol.

coco

How much say did you have in their meetings or the draft of the notecard, and what would be presented to the Lindens? Did you attend the meetings? Certainly, as a valued officer of such an important group, someone would have at least consulted your schedule so that you could have attended. Did they even tell you about the meetings?

Excellent, Juro. I agree with almost all your comments.

But can you tell me, why are the demands of this one special interest group, so dubiously lead, of such significance that everyone keeps discussing them so much ?

Surely they are trivial in themselves ? The thing that matters is that they got Philip Linden to sit in a Linden conference room with them for 2 hours and involve himself in interactive discourse ?

He claims he is ready, even eager, to repeat this with other lobby groups.

This claim IS significant, and it is vital we verify its sincerity, discuss a code of practice in relation to establishing equal access, and guidelines on notification and reporting.

Oh hell, why bother - I give up.......

Lets all just keep our eyes down and scrutinise the bark of the trees . Who wants to see the wood anyway........

There is no need for a 'code of practice' from us. There is no need to insist on proof that we have equal access. There is no need for 'guidelines on notification', nor of reporting. In short, there is no need for the bureaucracy.

Anyone who wants to talk to Linden Labs has a plethora of avenues by which to do so. None of them require anything more than the motivation to use them.

There is no 'repression' at the hands of Linden Labs, therefore there is no need to 'protect' anyone from it.

There is no 'injustice' at the hands of Linden Labs, therefore there is no need to 'protect' anyone from it.

This is one among a number of political efforts set in motion by admittedly political players for purely political gain.

Why on earth would anyone want to give that credibility by in any way supporting it?

Yes, they told me about the meetings. They told everyone about the meetings via group messages in the game.

I didn't get on the game in time to receive the messages. I generally miss out on most of the action during the daytime.

IF you are suggesting I was invited just to be Prok's mouthpiece, then I will tell you that can't be right, judging by all the conversations I've had with Prok in which we DON'T agree on something, and about which I take the opposite tack of his, both on these forums and to people in world, AND HE KNOWS IT.

If you are suggesting I was invited just to be Anshe's mouthpiece, then I believe you have missed my various posts which have criticized her actions in some way, or taken the opposite position of hers - but I bet you SHE hasn't missed them. I would also point out that I don't know Anshe at all, nor she me.

If you are suggesting I was invited because I'm a reasonable individual who represents the average player and cares deeply and obviously to everyone about issues of fairness and equal opportunity for all, then you may just finally be right.

coco

Okay if it's true that Anshe was recalled and had to circumvent the system to stay in position, it lends very much obvious support to Prok's steady complaint that the officer recal feature is unfair and should be eliminated. So he's gotten something out of this at least. I still can't imagine what she's hoping to gain. It be easier to understand if we knew who approached whom with the idea in the first place. I wouldn't say the other is being used. They're both too savvy for that. But the approacher will likely walk away with more accomplished than the approachee. Don't touch that dial.

Fair for everyone can sometimes be in conflict with protecting services. The risk both service providers and content creators take on when doing anything substantial in SL is worth consideration without doubt. Most of us are fully aware that any efforts we put in could be wiped out with a simple update. The ToS reminds us all of this; of how tenuous this world is. But it's a risk these people assume going in. To protect them in cases where the public good should trump smacks of all the things I see wrong in my real world government; especially now.

I don't have to like what happens to acknowledge that it may be for the best. I don't like seeing GOM impacted by the coming changes (though my transactions are insignificant, I intend to continue using them), and probably would like it less if I knew more, but I do see the value in making currency transactions easier for everyone. Similarly, if (when?) Linden Lab decides to implement procedural textures or a higher quality avatar (maybe two) or SpeedTree or code that obsoletes current vehicles, I'll empathize with those content creators even while supporting the upgrade.

The problem is that one group's "justice" is sometimes translated into control of another group. I don't call that justice. I call that self-serving.

This one is closest.

I expect an apology from you. You may not give it, but I expect one.

coco

I would like to note that many of the points brought up in this notecard have been addressed by various Lindens at different times. What may be missing here is a proper collection of them into a form that can be referenced and updated.

As for many of the others, they really are no one's business outside of Linden Lab. And the suggestion that actions which affect profits ingame should be subject to legal and financial compensation is utterly self-serving. It would likely destroy LL's chances of ever truly birthing this baby.

That must suck for you.

I vote for Jonquille for Queen of Second Life.

Hell thats just crazy talk!

Yeah I agree with Jon on this one. Your playing step-n-fetch.

Siggy.

(PS - Jon last night you asked if I'd play nice... but now all bets are off ;P)

Did you notice the huge flood of outrage about this private meetng on the other massive thread, Cienna ? What was that about, do you think, if everything is so totally ok ?

Maybe you knew that Philip would sit down in a Linden conference room and personally and interactively discuss the concerns of a small group of residents for (reportedly) nearly two hours. Maybe he does it often. But I didn't know. And by their postings, I think most of the others didn't know. I was shocked - as I think they were too.

My feelings of shock were assuaged by his statement that he was available to almost any group that made a similar request, and was surprised that more didn't. I myself find this professed open availabilty difficult to believe (having run my own company).How could he possibly spare this sort of time once this opportunity was known, and many more requests come in.

I am absolutely certain that if more lobby groups are formed in response to these encouraging words, this sort of meeting, in this detail, would quickly prove to be a very limited resource indeed, despite your apparent confidence in the opposite.

It is clear that the majority of posters here are deeply concerned about equality of access to such meetings, and about transparency in what meetings take place, on what topics. And that they see no reason why small numbers of residents should have preferential access to privileged information which may give them competitive advantage of some sort.

So I repeat, for all these reasons, we need guidelines and/or a code of practice so that things are not only fair and open, but seen to be fair and open.

You bland reassurances that everything in the garden is lovely, and everybody has full access any time, don't fit well with the forum outrage, and don't fit well with what is obviously practical. Nor can we know what other people may have been told, so we can't ask the same question for ourselves, which would be horribly inefficient anyway.

Not much bureacracy needed, Cienna, just a Linden agreement that it would only have face to face meetings with groups which meet a few criteria on open-ness and reporting, and that if and when such meetings need to be rationed, then the rationing will be via fair and declared criteria.

Yes, and I posit it sucks for you, too.

coco

Imagine what I would like to say.

coco

Hmm... it doesn't suck for me. I think someone wants some coffee, though.

Pass the popcorn and the junior mints.

It proves two things:

- there needs to be better group options to limit this type of activity when it is squarely malicious. The finer points of implementation need to be discussed at length, obviously a blanket approach to groups doesn't work, so simply changing blankets won't either.

- someone doensn't think Anshe is fit to be an officer and started a recall. Very convenient for driving home the point about officer recall, don't you think?

Doesn't suck for me either. She can "expect an apology" all she wants.

It makes me think of that one guy from Popeye who was always demanding apologies from everyone. He was silly and ignored too.