Malicious Office-Recall in Ravenglass

You know, I don't defend Prok on the forums. He want's to wage war against his personal moriarty of the day, then so be it. Other people want to fence with him on issues, then "Have fun!" is the responce I give to everyone...

This... This was a nasty little attack that bordered on changing the locks on a person's home (apartment complex in this case) while they aren't looking. AND IT EFFECTS HIS CUSTOMERS.

I know bashing Prok is a passtime on the boards, have fun at it... I'll just take note of those who are so self absorbed in their ranting that they forget the world does not revolve around hating Prok, Anshe, or any other "Great Evil"...

Sometimes and issue is just an issue, and griefing is just griefing...

Later all,

Ummm why would someone be banned for using the tools as they were intended...they obviously didn't like the leadership and started a recall....

Excellent!

Mash walks the walk - this is the inspirational SL tradition that cements the Gird and binds us as a community!

I hope Pork this has helped you deal with your difficulties.

Like I said, I would normally be 100% in agreement here. It's just I'm having a damn hard time caring about the situation in question. Maybe when it happens to someone else I'll be more outraged.

MJ,

Be careful with those stitches Your post made me laugh out loud . First BJ crawls out of his hole, now this. Yay I love the forums

Yes, Mash, what you should have done in keeping with forum pack-dog morality, was join my group and then be on hand to trigger the NEXT officer recall after the first one was solved.

I appreciate your being decent enough to put aside forum distances to offer a suggestion -- you'll get a posrate for me!

I stand by all the concerns I raised about the railroad, however. I don't think private players should benefit from public transportation, in having it give their group dwell, and having it give traffic to their business establishments, which is the case with the railroad you are supporting. You've now explained that you aren't the one who made this railroad, you just gave land for it.

I know it seems churlish of me to keep on this, but honestly, these are basic principles of RL. A public transit system that benefits all should be supported by all and all should get benefits from it. I'm surprised it's not Ulrika who is bleating about this.

That such piecemeal player solutions emerge and can get traction is due to the Lindens not organizing proper public transit and a clear public transit policy themselves. It's one of those functions of government that the Lindens didn't take on properly as the often-sketchy "federal government" that they are, and that players, when they take it on, can do better often, but not without raising the question of the privatization of the public sphere.

You are a piece of work. You don't even have the class to just let a thank you be simply a thank you. It must be a platform for another tirade in your endless fake 'activism'. Honestly. I don't think you can resist and just say thank you. Mash has proven his graciousness, and you reconfirmed what an ass you are.

Yes, Cristiano, would you expect anything different? Because the issue didn't go away -- no private player should grab public transit.

I am determined to help make this a world where principles like that stand.

A world based on old-boy connections and favor banks with intricate layers of whom I'm nice to and who is a nice guy isn't a free society, and it's not one I want to live in.

He's on to us, boys. Please stop using the secret handshake immediately.

Yes that is true Prokofy - LL does have some serious problems - but effective change, IMO, does not always come about via. the forums, and seldom comes about once if the message is laced with conflict and hostility to others.

Player efforts are how we have to go about effecting change to our world - and for better or worse, people who have effective leadership skills are the ones with some influence with the powers that be.

People working together to achieve shared visions must have skills at resolving conflict. Very little conflict resolution happens on the forums. So when Mash can step forward and offer assistance - accept it gratefully and with some humility. Prokofy you've read how many other folks for one reason or another, were honest with you about just not having the juice to support you - so when someone does, its a gift.

Your posting style has lots of heat, and much of the light you offer is missed. My suggestion is to focus your efforts and address them to LL directly - send Philip-Robin-Corey your blueprints and open dialogues with them. Take a break from the forms and work directly with the very people who can make changes to our world.

You do make a valuable contribution inWorld,and your impact could be more substantial with a thoughtful re-evaluation of your methods.

_/_/

True.
Nor does needlessly pissing off people with sweeping brushes of silly, and sometimes hostile stereotypes get much accomplished.

Building bridges and finding common SL ground is much more effective in creating change - in any life!

Unless Prokovy Neva is involved, then it becomes a drama complete with EPIC DANGER and VILLIANS OF THE UTMOST EVIL and POOR, INNOCENT, PUT-UPON, HELPLESS Prokovy... who, inspite of forum rules, game rules, and the rules of common respect and social priority, continues to turn anything and everything that happens to him into a massive conflageration of self-pity and immediately grieves the fuck out of anyone who dares disagree with him.

I am sick of Prokovy Neva's bloated ego and narcissism. I wish to bloody hell the ignore feature was working (it doesn't seem to be for me). I had the mewling ass on ignore initially but I swear it is like looking at an accident on the side of the road. You don't want to do it, you know it is wrong, but you just can't help but check to see if it is as twisted and fucked up as you imagine. It always is...

Anyway. I vote for public shunning. Mine starts now.

Groups absolutely have to be redesigned to offer more choices. While some groups are a democratic group of peers with chosen leaders (actually very few that I'm aware of), other groups aren't run this way and should not be subject to recalls and profit sharing.

We need to have more group options:

* The option to make officers either elected or appointed. Appointed officers should not subject to recall.

* Only officers recieve group dwell and other group money.

* Dwell ando ther group money is split proportionally by tier contribution.

* More than two types of membership. Currently there is only officer and member. It would be nice to have a "president" level and maybe a lowest level. Serf? Each level should be assigned privileges by the president.

Posted a feature request: /13/47/44011/1.html#post466196

Yes, I have the impression that very few, if any, groups in SL run on this idealistic and utopianist idea of the "commune" where all are equal, all share profits, all have the right to disrupt the all, etc.

I'm not aware of any success group of this nature, not landed, although Blue Linden claimed that officer recall was used successfully recently in one instance for the noble intentions it was supposedly designed for, i.e. to curb tyranny. My own belief is that those intentions weren't so noble, because they merely enabled tyranny by the jihadist.



Yes, we do, and the Lindens seem to concede this.



With this idea, I'm assuming a founder would establish a group, the hit the "appoint" button to select 2 or more other officers of his chosing. None of them would be subject to recall. But then what mix of rights/privileges would you put in the officers' category, and would you distinguish it from the founder himself or herself?



I'm actually for having a toggle on this. I think the founder or officers should have the option to redistribute all the dwell, or money off a group deeded object, or a land sale kept in group. Why not? It's a nice benefit.

But I'm also for having founders and appointed officers be able to keep income and dwell, since after all, they're the ones providing the bulk of the purchase price of land and tier costs.



I'm trying to think this through. First, there's the problem of alts, I suppose, although I suppose if an alt wants to put in tier, it should be rewarded LOL.

I'm wondering if this is going to be too hard to calibrate and implement.

My understanding is that the coding and administration of groups would actually be easier if they allowe the one CEO model, who appoints the board of trustees



Yes, I've written about this many times. I can't even find all the posts I've written on this, providing a range from founder, to investment officer, to management officer, to tier-donating member, to management member, to ordinary member etc.

If introducing all these different gradations and levels would slow down the Lindens on this project, I'd be opposed to it. The most urgent improvement we need is a way for a founder not to face recall, and not to face the sale of land he pays tier on and invested in by treacherous officers.

You haven't dealt with the issue of how to prevent the re-sale of land out from under the person who pays tier.

The default response on this right now is: well, it's group land, dummy.

But it usually is NOT group land in which every member of the group pays equally on it. In many cases, there is one giant donor, or 2-3 giant donors, and a lot of little donors or just freeloaders.

What would LL do without you?

Prokovy, you are your own worst enemy. People are jumping on you because they can barely stand to wade through the rhetoric, name calling, and drama. That means that a legitamate issue gets lost in the noise. Posture less and you will get more respect.

As for the knee-jerk response people.... grow up. Prokovy has brought up a serious and frustrating issue. Maybe it only impacts directly people who are running land groups for business purposes, nevertheless, business is an important part of SL... or would you like to only wear, use, etc. those items which you or your friends create. That's possible for some of us, but the vast majority of SL wants to go shopping.

The alt officer is indeed a good work around. We used it recently when a member of a social group was acting like a twit. We were trying to close the group since it wasn't in use anymore and someone was feeling playful.

The forums are a pretty useless vehicle for getting anything done but blood pressure raised. Here's a suggestion. How about a email to Phillip, with the desired changes concisely laid out, the reasons they would benefit LL spelled out too. Post a copy to the forum, ask other business owners to send it to him as well. If Phillip (or his secretary) gets a couple of hundred, they are more likely to pay attention. At least it works in politics.

And can we address the permissions mess too while we're at it?

So it's agreed that whatever the specific changes are to the way groups work, the goal is to allow more flexibility in assigning specific privileges to members. What if groups came with three default membership levels, you could configure the rights assigned to each level, and even add more levels if you need them? That would allow the flexibility to customize the structure to any scenario.

Want a dictatorship? No problem: El Presidente, Appointed Generals, and Serfs. A business might be: CEO, board members, shareholders, and customers. An artists' collective might be: directors, contributor, artist members.

To get to specifics, each level might have these options that the most senior member can change:

[ ] Receives group dwell.
[ ] Can modify land.
[ ] Can sell land.
[ ] Receives group dividends.
[ ] Is subject to recall.
[ ] Can initiate a recall.
[ ] Can invite new members up to membership level: x
[ ] Can be ejected by members of level x and higher
[ ] Can modify membership level options.

etc... Those are just examples. I'm sure the specifics would need more time to be hammered out in sufficient detail.

If groups were composed of customizable membership levels, they'd be a lot more stable and adaptable to any situation.

Beautiful!!

Great suggestion Cubey. I'd wholeheartedly support groups being structured that way with more flexibility to tailor them to their intended purpose.

I am not reading 4 pages to see if someone has told you that you can leave the group and get reinvited to stop the recall.

I agree with Talen on this point. I don't accept Prokofy's term griever, instead write it off as yet another "forum grieving" by Prokofy and another example of airing dirty laundry.

This has happened to Ashne several times, yet she seems to overcome it quite easily by, dropping and rejoining the group and by not boisterously making sweeping accusations.

good post cubey.

and I am glad you helped Prok out Mash.

regardless of ideological (or emotional, for that matter) differences, no one deserves to face the abuse potential inherant in our current group tools