Thread about War and "Political Parties"

Well, there can be more than two groups.

You would have to see the platforms of the groups, what they stand for, in order to join.

(Again, this is an entirely different idea of mine from the one about Toward a New Civility, which is an idea of mine for all of us, anyone and everyone, to get together and see if we can't set up some guidelines for comportment on the forums that we can agree on, and anyone else who agrees on them can sign on to the group whenever they wish, pledging to try to follow those guidelines. Again, I invite everyone to IM me about that, and meanwhile, be thinking up some broad things we could agree to.)

coco

I agree with virtually everything you said, Cristiano, and think it is partly a function of the game growing.

Think of them as "special interest groups," if you prefer, who exist to make sure certain things are paid attention to. For my own group/party, I just figured out ten minutes ago it might be the "Equal Opportunity Party."

Oh, and I want to make myself a little more clear about Prok - we are friends and agree on a number of positions (and disagree on others), but that's not really quite all. Since we are friends, I will fight pretty fiercely for his right to talk, and, especially, for his right to play the game. Just so everybody knows where I'm coming from on that.

coco

P.S. (I wish I could get my thoughts together BEFORE I post.) About this business of power: It is true that Linden Life makes it's own decisions. But players ALWAYS have power, and LL is particularly receptive to player ideas. Having groups to represent those various ideas might help the weaker ones.

Coco. I am sorry if I came across harsh or as stereotyping. Remember, many of us others have been subjected to stereotyping for months, some of which you have aided. If that's just your independent thought which happens to fall in line with some of Prokofy's thoughts, I can accept that.

I would recommend that you stop using terms like war. Prokofy used that at least 2 times recently, it doesn't lend itself towards your goal of more civility, nor does defining or creating labels for groups.

I don't understand why you would want to place names on "parties', when all that will do is encourage more of the us vs. them mentality, even if there are more than 2. I mean after all, there are no general elections within SL, and Robin has made it pretty clear that they will only exist in player made models. So I have to ask; what possible good could come of branding paper tigers?

"If that's just your independent thought which happens to fall in line with some of Prokofy's thoughts, I can accept that."

That is it, Nolan.

"I would recommend that you stop using terms like war."

I just took that term from the "War" thread below, which made me think of all this stuff. There is no war. Anymore than there is a war between Republicans and Democrats, even though it sometimes may look that way.

"I don't understand why you would want to place names on "parties', when all that will do is encourage more of the us vs. them mentality, even if there are more than 2. I mean after all, there are no general elections within SL, and Robin has made it pretty clear that they will only exist in player made models. So I have to ask; what possible good could come of branding paper tiger."

Because I think we need it. I'm quite sure I need it. Might not go anywhere, but it might be worth a shot.

coco

I would be very disappointed to see any kind of party system form in SL. To me, because of the lack of structure and freedom that ambiguity provides, it has always been an individualist's paradise.

Call it special interest groups, then, or lobbyists to the ones who really make the rules - the Lindens.

I wish to give you guys a run for your money!

The more I think about it, the more I like the "Equal Opportunity Party."

coco

who is "you guys"?

Coco, I think the US bipartisan system sucks . . . political machinery that attempts to drive us to choose between only two options: the baloney, or the all-beef baloney. With such limited options, and not wanting to toss our votes down the crapper in hopes of some third party some day getting more than three or five percent in a presidential election, a heck of a lot of voters vote for the one that isn't as bad, or against the one that's worse, or don't bother to vote at all. That's pretty sad. I could say a lot more about why the system sucks, but it'd belong in Off Topic, so suffice it to say I believe it is a crappy deal and it is divisive. I don't like it in RL, let alone wish to see anything like that in SL.

Anyway, I'm opposed to grid-wide member government in SL. Part of what I pay LL for every month is community management and TOS enforcment by online community management professionals. They have made available a number of avenues for customer feedback. I have no interest in attempting to prioritize my requirements for customer satistfaction in order to choose some sort of supposed political party to represent some portion of my interests. Why should I? I can just post in the Hotline, go to a meeting with Lindens in Ambleside, email Philip (or any other) Linden, or just pick up the phone and call Linden Lab directly, as can anyone else. I speak for myself, and I don't need or want to join or round up a posse/party in order to back me up when I do it.

And don't forget about the ability to create proposals and have them voted on by the SL public.

That is not really an answer Coco. I know that you think we need it, I just want to know why, when LL says we will never have SL wide government as a requirement, you want to neatly package people into groups. What possible advantage could it have?

I am actually worried that you want this so that when someone new enters SL, you can hit them right away with "what party are you going to join? You know, that party over there is self-absorbed and have too much influence on SL", etc.

Please tell me I am wrong.

Well, Nolan, I don't know where you get these ideas.

Proposals, yes, all that stuff is great - the meetings they hold, all that.

Nor am I suggesting they are not.

Kim, it wouldn't have to be bipartisan. It's just that right now I can think of only two groups right now, plus a third, sort of anarchists, if you count W-hat.

That's how I see it, of course, and how *I* have experienced it. Someone else may think of something else they would like represented. And, of course, no one has to take part in any of it. And, of course, it's not sort of mandatory government, with elections and all that.

But it would give people like me a stronger position.

Chip, I mean you, for one, when I say "you guys." And it's still an individualist's paradise. As an individual, I should be able to form whatever special interest group/political party/Friday night sewing circle/and/or/group orgy I want, right? Anyway, it might not even work out.

coco

Sorry Coco. I'm still trying to grasp this... especially your comment about only seeing two groups and anarchists. What are those groups? Those that agree with you, those that don't, and those that don't care? Aren't you trying to create the very system you've so vocally opposed (meaning small special interest groups with disproportionate influence)?

I get these ideas from the forum history over the past several months, in which yourself and a few others have claimed these things. When you give me an answer like "because I think we need it.", you really don't leave me many choices, other than to examine the record.

I see. This is predicated upon your belief that you have less power. See where I "get those ideas"?

"Those that agree with you, those that don't, and those that don't care?"

rofl! that sounds good, lol!

And Nolan - no, I meant the idea of trying to grab newbies off and demanding to know "which party they were going to join." I don't even LIKE politics, so I'm hardly likely to do something like that.

Yes, it's predicated on the belief that I have less power. That there is an entrenched group of people for whom the current system is fine and dandy, and those who don't think so, just don't "get it." That my ideas are be too easily dismissed on the flimsy argument that "that's not the idea" or "that's not what we're all about here," when *I* am a PART of "we," and for all I know there may be more of me around.

Pretty stagnant if you ask me.

Add to the fact that some of those who insist everything is fine and dandy, and that the only thing the Lindens need to worry about is keeping the $4.00/1000 strong, just happen to also be the very ones who benefit most from that sound Linden, and it's no wonder they don't want to see any change or care about the things others of us care about. And a lot of us care more about having fun than the dang Linden dollar.

I'm just sort of feeling this out, and thinking about it as we go along here, but I am thinking so far that "The Equal Opportunity Party" would cover most of my main types of concerns under one umbrella.

For instance:

1. Equal Opportunity for Linden Publicity

This group would act as sort of a watchdog organization, to point out whenever people did not have an equal opportunity for Linden publicity.

. The profile business. In future, to avoid charges of favoritism, the Lindens should make sure to put up either NO profiles, or equal opportunity for all to have their profiles put up. The Equal Opportunity Party would be there to report and protest if this were not the case. (I actually have no idea what has become of those profiles, or even if they are still up.)

. The "photos" on the website. Is there any reason why Amy Weber should appear three times and Tiffany Weary (made up), never? Is there any reason we should look at Marcus Forsetti (I think that's his name) forever? The EOP would bring up such matters. Everyone would like their chance at the excitement of being featured, too.

. The screens going through Snapzilla before hitting this website. Now, we all know perfectly well that there is no BETTER source of these photos than Snapzilla, and that it is in fact perfectly suited to this task, and everyone is happy with the easiness with which it works out. But to avoid charges of favoritism, they should have thought ahead a bit, announced they were looking for someone, then announced their choice. (Not to mention inform Cristiano of it beforehand.) So that there is always Equal Opportunity for All. What if there had been another budding site like that, and they had gotten all bent out of shape that they didn't even have a chance at it? In any case, all such future things would, our group would hope, be put forth with an equal opportunity for all before they make their decision.

2. Equal Opportunity in the game itself. This would be a place where people could band together to lobby for balance within the game. For example, when subsidies to entertainers were cut, these people could get together and collect statistics and write signed proposals for why they think it should be reinstated. Or maybe more creative ideas for what would help entertainers, if they are the ones currently getting short shrift.

3. Equal Opportunity on the forums. Here, the group would stand for everyone having the equal opportunity to have their dignified say.

4. The Equal Opportunity Party would be just the same sort of people who would protest loudly, for example, if a Linden happened to be involved in an IRC discussion about how to get rid of another player, just as I did at the time. (Mind you, that particular Linden is one of my personal favorites, and I had to feel bringing up the issue was pretty necessary. I'd rather not have to do that by myself next time.)

And I imagine there are other things, I just have only been thinking about this a few hours now.

coco

Factions *are* political parties or groups.

You said alot of nothing.. weird.

factions, parties, groups already exist in SL, and even though you say their existence is based on a single common cause they are still party/group/faction.

A faction can have a single agenda/issue platform and they are still a political party.

Briana Dawson

That all sounds positively dreadful, Coco. I submit to you that SL already is fair and that equal opportunity already exists. Anyone can rise to the top here, but not by simply demanding they be installed there.

SL, like life, is competitive to a degree. To rise to the top in visibility, popularity, financial success, or whatever other metric you want to use, takes effort, hard work, ingenuity, and talent. To decry that SL is somehow unfair because others have found success where you haven't (yet) is to show that you find absolutely no value in the efforts that brought those people to where they are. If you want your moment in the sun, work your ass off for it. Don't simply gather together a group of people whose goal is to complain and shout until they get things handed to them.

If there are features you want or things you want to see changed, propose them so that people can vote on them. If you want to be in the limelight, find something to do better than anyone else, and then practice at it until you can. If you want financial gain, find something people want to buy and market it.

You mean to tell me it take effort, hard work, ingeniuty, and talent to have your AV pic put up to illustrate a web page?

If so, where are the requirements for it, so everyone can have equal opportunity to at least compete for the spot?

And maybe I am doing, right here, right now, something good, Chip.

coco

I've seen the pictures so often I don't even notice them anymore. Is it really that important? Doesn't LL have more important things to do with their time than redo the website banner 10,000 times because some people are upset that they're not on it?

Yes.



Create an attractive or interesting avatar that the marketing team might think will attract more paying customers; wear it in public and make sure it's seen. Build something really cool and photogenic that the marketing team might think will attract more paying customers, and promote it. Put in the months of effort, hard work, ingenuity, and talent it takes to start an inworld business and get to the top of your field -- doing something that prospective SL members might wish they could do or think they might be able to do. But make sure it's something that fits the marketing team's angle (for example, even if you're the world's premiere purveyor of furry penile attachments and making a pile of RL cash, LL probably won't spotlight ya on the front page).

I don't buy that, Kim.

I don't buy that all THAT is required before a person is good enough to get their AV on a page. Or to have their profile featured, for that matter.

I betcha others agree with me, too.

coco

Please tell me how else do you think it happened? Do you want your AV on the webpage? We could take some really cool snapshots in world. I have some good poses or I can make any pose you want and we could submit them to LL and I'm sure they will put your AV on the webpage. That would be so cool.

Also, Please tell me which side I am on? I didn't realize about the different sides and I want to make sure I go to the right meetings. Or is this the Civility group we are going to organize in world? I don't know, that sounds a lot like the Moral Majority.

Sigh.

Just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it is true, Coco. It just perpetuates all of this crap when you just assume the only way someone gets on there is through connections. Have you ever even asked? I am sorry, but an uninformed opinion that makes wild assumptions about something serves no good at all. Conjecture is hardly productive. Have you submitted your avatar or profile to the marketing dept?

"Everyone would like their chance at the excitement of being featured, too."

Tell ya what. Instead of defending the status quo, why don't you tell me what is wrong with giving everyone a chance to be on the pages, as I said in my sentence above?

coco

P.S. Who said anything about connections? I believe I asked WHY Amy Weber should be featured three times, and Tiffany Weary (made up) never.

What wild assumptions?

We keep going over this mystic inner cabal nonsense. It seems to me that someone was recently banned from the forums for not letting this ignis fatuus go; picking at a scab they created themselves with their own jealous and paranoid scratching. There is certainly a FIC of sorts, but this continual striving to create an us/them animosity just won't work. If there are a number of influential or trend setting subscribers it is a meritocracy and by no means a group. Many of the alpha and beta testers still subscribing never log in and some of the most influential and best known individuals are only recently joined. Having 4096 meters you don't get billed for every month is not the ticket into the Priory of Sion or any other mystical, fictional group. Nor is having Philip Linden's calling card. Some people just work harder than others or have more talent or even have more money. Just like life in the real world.