towards a stronger sl community

You and Philip's "open grid" is proof You Just Don't Get It. It's proof that the Second Life is doomed to failure because it's an inflexible system started and run -- not over taken, started and run -- by tyrants. Facist states get started when small-minded people control a population. Second Life is a facist state because its run by Linden Lab.

IHaving a world where little grouplets and sects go off on their own little private estates to do their things and then only self-select likeminded is going to replicate into a fascistic state and either become networks of warring principalities or have very weak civil society and be prey to being overtaken by tyrants.

The title of this thread is "Towards a stronger SL community", but if that nice sentiment actually carries a hidden agenda of "single community, imposed on everyone" then the picture that comes to mind is not one of bliss, but of coercive horror. No thanks.

Given that land is a scarce and expensive commodity in SL, I think a lot of the game for some does amount to getting more land and getting more dwell on that land to get more
prizes/grants from the Lindens. You and others pondering Sl in a more wonkish and thinky way tend to screen out the realities of this virtual game, that quite a few people are wrapped up in the dwell game, even if you aren't, and the Lindens encourage it.



I'm truly puzzled by this. I wonder where you get off thinking I'm advocating some unified field of an ideology to take over SL. What is "universalism" in your book? Universalism to me means thinks like "universal human values," which was the hallmark of the Shevardnadze ideology that helped break up the totalitarian Soviet Union and hook up those countries to the rest of the civilized world under the rule of law. "Universalism" to me means things like "the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" which has universally-recognized human rights precepts in it. "Universalism" to me means precisely some simple set of precepts that precludes all these little sects from getting a hammerlock on the servers.



Perhaps I'm not as up on sci-fi reading as I should be, but I don't really know what a Borg is. I gather it is something negative. I don't know why there'd be no future in the direction I suggest, which is finding universal human values, creating open societies, and having them under univerally recognized precepts of the rule of law. LL seems to be playing with democratic majoritarian voting now, at least, as democratic as you can get giving the presence of alts and vote-buying. But majoritarianism can also bring you jihadists. So people talking about societies usually preface such a notion with the word "liberal" precisely to imply tolerance and rational thinking as applied to the problems of minorities and majorities. Universal values precisely give rights to minorities, ensuring their protection from majorities.

I'm all for giving rights to minorities within a system of universalism, rather than so Balkanzing the servers as to give tyrannical fiefdoms to little sects of minorities. I think that's not the way to go.



Why is it that you think we disagree? You're lecturing me bordering on the usual hectoring tone. But you've *completely got wrong* everything I believe in. I definitely don't want some homogenized whitebreadpicket-fence existence for SL, despite the lurid caricatures of me that Ardith Mifflin brings to the table. I'm for a tolerance of both white picket fences and purple fantasy trees. I'm for pluralism, and finding ways for people to solve conflicts without one way prevailing over the other in the way it often does in SL where people who disagree usually just end up forcing one of them to move away, sometimes without ever even having the conflict come out in the open.



Well, that's exactly what concerns me. All of these likeminded pairing off in their little self-righteous and arrogant and smug sects ("We're the intelligent ones and we're surrounded by idiots AND we build the best and their buildings are crap" to me, when multiplied, don't lead to a host of pluralities that equal more freedom, instead they lead to a vast faceless society made of many closed little cells that will either implode on themselves, or contain weak mechanisms for preserving civil society and become prey to tyrannical doctrines -- especially of the white-gloved cyber variety that are going to be able to dress themselves up in very fine clothing.



I need to understand what universalism means to you that you've developed such an allergy to it meaning universal human rights or universal human values. I think what you're about to say is that these universalities don't mean anything to you any more in the Chomskified and Dadaified broken-up modern world, and you think those things are all just dodges for ebil Western capitalism or US hegemony or something. I hope you're more sophisticated than that. So what bothers you about universality? Universality creates a plane of existence in which there are tolerances EVEN for little sects all over the grid but which also try to find some shared notions of public accessible space, guarantee and protection of rights, etc.

Is experience so particularized by the seeming fake "openness" of the Internet nowadays that retreating into little fiefdoms is now being passed off as the new open society? Ack. No thanks!



Well, this is what I worry about, when my past debates with StoneSelf consisted of him simply saying "You're wrong because I say so" when I presented to him just a few basic insights about East-West cultural clashes that occur in SL. But that's another story.

This is a longer point, but I'm for rejecting the model celebrated by Lindens and older players of Taber. Taber to me is a Brigadoon or a Shambala that cannot be replicated and chasing after it only leads to creating the substrate for tyranny. Taber is merely a self-selected group of artistically- or computer-skilled people, facililtated by the old Linden tax-free subsidies for themed sims, who, by keeping out the hoi polloi, were able to bring a high concentration of talent and good building and products to what they did. They are a testimony to what 6 people having a shared sense of being on an "excellent adventure" together, subsidized by Lindens, can achieve. They involve couples, fiercely-held friendships, intense bondings, intense shared concepts of adventure. That's all great. But we can't all go on an adventure quest with 5 other really intelligent and talented people and be subsidized by the Lindens while we're at it. So I'm looking for other types of simpler models for the ordinary folk -- the "what about the people who have no talent" as that poignant thread-starter put it.

What I can't stress enough Morgaine, is that all your talk, and that of Gwyn and Moon about opening up the sourcing and opening up the grid and all that is absolutely worthless if it is not accompanied by a thorough-going analysis of "open society and its enemies". An open sourcing and an open grid that contains a lot of fiefdoms and horrid little sectarian closed societies on it merely helps spread Jihad or McWorld, but it doesn't keep a society open. We live in a world where all kinds of little sects, some with really outmoded ideologies antecedent to the Age of Enlightenment, hold sway over good numbers of residents and over a good number of their hours on line. I personally don't want to give a helping hand to replicating all that over the Internet because it's not free.

This is a longer point, but I'm for rejecting the model celebrated by Lindens and older players of Taber. Taber to me is a Brigadoon or a Shambala that cannot be replicated and chasing after it only leads to creating the substrate for tyranny. Taber is merely a self-selected group of artistically- or computer-skilled people, facililtated by the old Linden tax-free subsidies for themed sims, who, by keeping out the hoi polloi, were able to bring a high concentration of talent and good building and products to what they did. They are a testimony to what 6 people having a shared sense of being on an "excellent adventure" together, subsidized by Lindens, can achieve. They involve couples, fiercely-held friendships, intense bondings, intense shared concepts of adventure. That's all great. But we can't all go on an adventure quest with 5 other really intelligent and talented people and be subsidized by the Lindens while we're at it. So I'm looking for other types of simpler models for the ordinary folk -- the "what about the people who have no talent" as that poignant thread-starter put it.

Taber is owned by over a dozen people, some of which belong to one of two land holding groups. Those owners are not all tudor theme builders meaning that there is no actual "project."

Did we not have this conversation yesterday? Or are you just blantantly ignoring everything i said to clarify some of these points. Taber is owned by over a dozen people, some of which belong to one of two land holding groups. Those owners are not all tudor theme builders meaning that there is no actual "project." That non-project has never been funded or subsidized in any way by Linden Lab or Linden favouritism.

In fact, oh never mind. What's the point in quoting facts. They'll just end up being rephrased as descriptions of dogmatic socialogical phenomena enhanced by intense psychological permutations of additional non-relational verbosity coupled with counterpoints that blantantly ignore the embedded facts as though they were never stated in the first place.

They'll just end up being rephrased as descriptions of dogmatic socialogical phenomena enhanced by intense psychological permutations of additional non-relational verbosity coupled with counterpoints that blantantly ignore the embedded facts as though they were never stated in the first place

Given that land is a scarce and expensive commodity in SL, ...

I think a lot of the game for some does amount to getting more land and getting more dwell on that land to get more prizes/grants from the Lindens. You and others pondering Sl in a more wonkish and thinky way tend to screen out the realities of this virtual game, that quite a few people are wrapped up in the dwell game, even if you aren't, and the Lindens encourage it.

I... I don't really know what a Borg is. I gather it is something negative. I don't know why there'd be no future in the direction I suggest, which is finding universal human values, ...

creating open societies, and having them under univerally recognized precepts of the rule of law.

LL seems to be playing with democratic majoritarian voting now

So people talking about societies usually preface such a notion with the word "liberal" precisely to imply tolerance and rational thinking as applied to the problems of minorities and majorities.

Universal values precisely give rights to minorities, ensuring their protection from majorities.

I'm all for giving rights to minorities within a system of universalism, rather than so Balkanzing the servers as to give tyrannical fiefdoms to little sects of minorities. I think that's not the way to go.

We come together based on a mutual interest or enemy and remain together because we share common beliefs, goals or interests. This is not rocket science. It's not even textbook sociology. It's just plain common sense and decency.

And no, the Lindens can't do anything to promote communities. Linden Lab is a software production and simulator hosting firm that mistakenly touts community building skills. The closest they can come to fostering is offering tools that communities could use to purchase, and share, inworld resources.

It has nothing to do with favouritism, fics, groups tools, Lindens, suppliments, tax breaks or themes. If you collect a group of people with an attitude of supporting each other through individual sacrifice, you have a fifty/fifty chance that they'll coalesce into a viable community. If you form a group based on any other formula, you don't stand a chance in hell.

... I think a better thing would be to improve group functionality so that there can be less need for many groups. That may not help any though. I think theres alot of groups, that are just kinda pointless.

So I'd:

1. Allow users to set custom titles without groups (again, this is just stupid and has been a request since forever)

2. Improve group functionality using something like I think it was Nexus Nash who outlined a good idea that would eliminate need for some double groups that exist.

Then see if the group cap is still such an issue or not.

The closest they can come to fostering is offering tools that communities could use to purchase, and share, inworld resources.

think it would be worthwhile for them to do this? for them? or the residents?

communities can form and be successful in Second Life today even without these features.

Let's start with the big problems now. Statements like the above presuppose that there *are* universal human values. This is a pretty odd subject. Almost everyone would tend to agree initially with that proposition ... until the moment that they try to decide what those universal human values actually are, and that's when people start going to war. Sadly (sad if I were a utopian that is), the concept is just not a useful one in practice. It leads to disagreements immediately, and bloodshed ultimately.

Quote:
creating open societies, and having them under univerally recognized precepts of the rule of law.

There are no univerally recognized precepts of human values, and hence there are no univerally agreed value judgements, and hence there cannot be any univerally recognized precepts of the rule of law. And that is why the rule of law *always* entails coercion of minorities who do not fit into the worldview of those who drafted the alleged "universally agreed precepts of law".

okay ow stop that.

I will not be convinced that inworld communities cannot form and decide that sharing and sacrificing are more important to them than their individual rights because the social fabric of the grid is polluted by Linden meddling but a marked lack of actual Linden support.

We come together based on a mutual interest or enemy and remain together because we share common beliefs, goals or interests. This is not rocket science. It's not even textbook sociology. It's just plain common sense and decency.

And no, the Lindens can't do anything to promote communities. Linden Lab is a software production and simulator hosting firm that mistakenly touts community building skills. The closest they can come to fostering is offering tools that communities could use to purchase, and share, inworld resources.

is that topical and toned down enough?

Originally Posted by Khamon Fate
We come together based on a mutual interest or enemy and remain together because we share common beliefs, goals or interests. This is not rocket science. It's not even textbook sociology. It's just plain common sense and decency.

And no, the Lindens can't do anything to promote communities. Linden Lab is a software production and simulator hosting firm that mistakenly touts community building skills. The closest they can come to fostering is offering tools that communities could use to purchase, and share, inworld resources.


It has nothing to do with favouritism, fics, groups tools, Lindens, suppliments, tax breaks or themes. If you collect a group of people with an attitude of supporting each other through individual sacrifice, you have a fifty/fifty chance that they'll coalesce into a viable community. If you form a group based on any other formula, you don't stand a chance in Hell.
__________________

It has nothing to do with favouritism, fics, groups tools, Lindens, suppliments, tax breaks or themes. If you collect a group of people with an attitude of supporting each other through individual sacrifice, you have a fifty/fifty chance that they'll coalesce into a viable community. If you form a group based on any other formula, you don't stand a chance in Hell.

In my experience inworld communities can form and thrive, but Linden Lab could provide more tools to enforce the social compacts that are made and agreed upon by the selfsame members of the community. You can take a group of the most disparate types and give them a common theme and a few basic guidelines and have a very harmonious community, even if it's look and feeling are chaotic, rather than groomed and Elizabethan in appearance, but all it takes is one person acting divisively or going against the theme and you can quickly wind up with everybody at each other's throats. I don't need to get into such mundane and overly bourgeois subjects such as community standards and property values, but these are valid component considerations of any community, and the fact that there is currently no way to rid a community of troublemakers is the number one reason that there are few successful examples inworld.

I'm not at all certain that a community with this power would be a good thing; I would just as soon not have it, myself, but it does explain why people in SL tend to form strong affiliations only with people that they know and trust will be valued members of the community.

The residents of Taber have known each other for years, in most cases, true, and are all very talented, but to characterize them as cliquish or "driving out the hoi-polloi" is just dead wrong. I sometimes think that Prokofy must be a college professor, since, even though he is obviously very learned, he still insists on pontificating over subjects in which he lacks complete knowledge or experience. The Taberites are several of them the remnants of an even older community, the Americana theme, and are all of them very helpful and friendly and welcoming to newcomers. I was myself welcomed into Americana when I'd only been in SL a matter of days - as were many others I could name. That I didn't stay is more a matter of differing visions, than differing goals.

The idea that the rule of law hurts minorities has to be some sick college-campus meme you've picked up somewhere.

Morgaine - what you've built is a comune not a community.A community is open to all people of all persuasions and not just those interested in a tudor lifestyle.