An interesting bit of hypocrisy

Wow, it's just too bad Jessica Simpson isn't on SL...she could be a stellar member of this group.

I think Pendari's point was that as an officer of the group, you are going to be tarnished with the same brush. You can try to say this is unfair, but as I have seen you yourself do it (i.e. accuse one person of saying something because you can't quite remember who exactly said it in the forums until told). I think Pendari is asking if you are willing to be seen by others as having this same "alternate" agenda, and that you are in agreement with other officers and members of the group, so when they make a statement, you've made the statement.

You can argue this all you want, however, if, someone in the Bush adminstration says or does something, it's seen as all of them thinking and feeling that way. If a Vice President of a company says something, it reflects on that company, and all members as a whole. If a professor or dean at a university says something, it reflects on that university as a whole (even students' statements can do that as well). If a reporter at a newspaper writes an article or editorial, it is seen as reflecting on the entire paper or magazine.

You can say that it doesn't effect you at all, but the implications of being an officer of this group are pretty far reaching Coco, and I think Pendari was trying to point that out to you.

Is all this sounding like Second Life meets the PNAC or something? Meet the Project for the New Second Life, I guess. Funny thing, I just happened to listen to Thomas Barnett's talk over on ITConversations yesterday (link). Guess it's always good to have an "enemy" (real or imagined).

I would agree that I would be undermining the very goals I wish to support. I was simply making a guess as to why some people focus more on the stakeholder notion than others.

Again, I'm not responsible for what one member says, any more than any member of the Democratic Party is responsible for defending what all other members of the party say. What counts is that we agree on the basic agenda. Which is justice and fairness for all.

If many want to point out that their stake - financial or otherwise - in SL is such that they should have a say when sweeping changes are made, I wouldn't disagree. At all. Because that basically applies to all of us. I'm just saying the word is not that big a deal to me personally, and needn't be, since I think the agenda of the group DOES benefit all. And anyone with a stake in SL - however you define it - should have some assurance that the system will be fair.

I agree with the concept of stakeholders because it really doesn't work to claim this isn't a game, then do things that benefit one sector of the economy at the expense of another; mete out justice and discipline in secrecy and without checks and balances; make fundamental changes in the economy that adversely affect businesses or do small things which give favor and promote one business over all the others; hand out large favors without a bidding process; create elite directories without transparency as to the process; and/or a host of other behaviors which belie (sp?) the idea that this is all supposed to be real, and not a game.

To be real, there needs to be fairness. This organization, in my opinion, is LONG overdue.

coco

P.S. Katja, I'm perfectly willing to be gilded by the same brush as the group. Proud to be, even. If the time comes when I consider it being tarnished, then I will just quit the group.

Whose group should I join that will represent my interests? I'm restating that NO GROUP SHOULD EVER CLAIM TO REPRESENT MY INTERESTS and NO PERSON SHOULD CLAIM TO BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS to the Lindens in matters of gridwide policy.

I am so happy that your group's notion of "fair" is fair. Oh wait, did anyone consult me? Hmm.. NO. For a group presenting ideas of "fairness", that doesn't seem so fair. In fact...it seems a bit elitist! A bit... insular! I bit.... medieval guild! Oh my!

I think when you SAY "fair" you mean "what i want".

Obviously, the people in the group think that those notions - or the majority of them - are fair.

I'll consult you, personally, now. Do you think they are good ideas, and fair? If so, join the group. If not, don't. That's what I did.

coco

Wow, what Anshepants said about certain people MERELY being a user/consumer/player, made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside...like a 3rd Class citizen on the Titanic...

Again, you might want to refer again to my examples. If I am a _part_ of a presidential adminstration (i.e. correlation to your group, an OFFICER or a MEMBER), and I make a statement, let's say "All women on welfare are LAZY", do you think that the public and press would say "Oh, that's just Katja Marlowe talking crazy again. Of course the PRESIDENT and the rest of the adminstration don't believe that."? In a small group (i.e. less than thousands upon thousands), hell yes, as an officer, you are responsible for what your members and fellow officers say, you are going to be thought to have the same views. And before you continue debating the responses to your post, you might want to check out what one member of your group HAS been saying and the INSULTS he has been slinging around. *shrugs* Or not, after all, you aren't responsible. So go ahead and keep talking without having read the entire thread.

And you are happy? Well thanks for calling me lazy then Coco. I appreciate the sentiment. I'll go back to my touristing ways and leave all the decisions to you big ol stakeholders, cause my little tourist brain can't comprehend it.

Bah.

And here I thought you had to be invited to become an officer!

Yay, panda!

http://digital-lifestyles.info/copy_images/supersmart_lrg.jpg

(Warning: don't ever enter "f#%king group" in a Google image search--you have been warned [One would think that I had learned my lesson with "bad" and "ass" with a space--nope ])

Yeah do me a favour at your next meeting and tell everyone you don't represent what the majority of SL wants. THAT would be fair.

I don't believe I ever called you lazy.

If I don't like what some member says, I'm free to take that up with them if I wish. But - they are also free to say what they like, and interpret things in their way, just as I am.

What's important is the general consensus on the points of the agenda, and what we are trying to accomplish.

coco

I love you, just for that.

hee hee
yes, delicious irony there
I wondered if anyone noticed that.

*wonders why she's trying again* *does it anyway*

Coco! You have a member calling people lazy and being insulting! You have Anshe calling us tourists! Yet you don't mind being tarnished with the same brush? Fine, you too believe that I am lazy for not going to the Town Hall and you too believe I'm a tourist. You want to be tarnished with the same brush? You're proud of it. Fine. There you go. You believe the same things they do. Ergo, the statements they make, you must believe too.

Coco...I hate to get involved...but have you considered tha some people may not be able to make it to town hall meetins. Maybe they have to work when they're being held....maybe they have family obligations? It's not laziness, it's prioritizing responsibilities...and honestly anyone who put's their SL over their RL has some prioritizing issues! Then again many have let the line between SL and RL get very blurred.

The only reason I'm getting involved is that I see this "agenda" favoring those in businesses and pushing for further reducing stipends that many of us depend on because RL does not allow us the time to work a second job in SL in order to "stabilize the economy" That is an agenda that I cannot afford. Call me a tourist or whatever you will, but my RL has to come first...that's where I get the $$ to pay for my SL.

No, because I don't know for a fact that what the group wants doesn't represent what the majority of SL wants.

Just as I don't know for a fact that what the group wants does represent what the majority of SL wants.

I, personally, think it would be good for all and would benefit all. That's why I'm in the group.

coco

Well, no.

coco

I wonder what part of

"I do not speak for the group"

is so hard to understand

and as if lazy is the worst name anyone has been called here.

Coco, we've been round and round explaining the concept, in varying degrees a rationalities.

let it go

Yay check it out! Corporate America speaking for the rest of us.. WOOOOOOOOOO!

Yes yes, who cares about the average resident. Money talks, money walks. Sound familiar?

Fill my ego please! (or lack there of).

Well now we're getting somewhere! You don't know, I don't know... which is why I didn't start or join a group under the pretense of being the voice of justice.

Where is it about the stipends? Did I miss something? I DEPEND on my stipends. If the group started calling for an end to stipends, I would be out of there. Let me know where it says that, and they can either change it or I'm gone.

Musicteacher, I wasn't in the discussion about the town hall meetings, either. I never said anybody was lazy. I have missed all the meetings, in fact, due to being too busy doing other things to log into the game and find out about them in time.

coco

The recall is over--you can join the group now.

I CARE about justice. I agree with the agenda of the group as to what constitutes justice. That's why I joined the group.

If you don't care about justice, or you disagree with how the group goes about getting justice, or you disagree with their ideas of what justice would be, or you don't agree that the agenda of the group constitutes good ideas of justice, or you disagree on any level, then just don't join the group.

coco