Limiting theft by limiting creation

But you said that you could arrive in-world pretty much any time and find something to do. If you're going back on that, then how many hours of searching are you expecting?



The later arrival had no idea that there were greeters to wait for. They weren't in sight, and there were no signs to tell them. Plus, of course, maybe the greeters were getting tired IRL and were going to log off after that tour. No matter what you do, there's always a factor that can change it.



Yes, MANY others will, but not EVERYONE. Which guarantees churn, drama, and nerd rage.



Which is why an automated system would be needed.



Then accept griefing and content theft: it is what happens when that aspect of life is reflected in a world where crime is non-violent and has much lower risk.



Yes, ok. But even if people aren't deliberately acting negatively, there are still limits on what they can do, and one of those limits is that they can't handle such massive numbers of people.



Right, but presuming that everyone who does the same behaviour themselves will get the same results is unreasonable (try mentioning the word "guarantee" in any social context). But if that isn't the case.. then the same behaviour will get different results for different people.. so what determines what results they get, given that the behaviour is the same? Chaos.



Yes, that's what happened. Why does that make it any better? If I didn't enjoy it, am I going to keep coming back and supporting it just because I know it was because of my own personality?



No, assuming that anyone who does a behaviour likes it is just an assumption. Amongst other things, if this were true there would be no such thing as mental anxiety disorders or compulsive disorders.



If you are not paying attention to them, then you don't hear their apology.



Then you are a lot more lenient than many such communities. I was once banned from one for posting a generic question on this forum that someone took as a personal reference.



Yes, and you said that these people "did not deserve attention" so why would you give it to them?



Yes, that's fine. Nobody is asking if you are responsible for griefing or content theft. I'm asking if you are prepared to accept it or not. Will the people be "dealt with"? That's been problematic so far.



How can they be responsible when they have NO idea that they are wrong?



No. The more accurate equivalent would be a cinema where 10% of the seats had no view of the screen. Somebody is going to end up sitting in them. They might be able to push someone else out of their seat, but then the person pushed out has to sit in them.



You're again making the assumption that people always do exactly what they want to do at every moment. But that's not true: people can be afraid, shy, distracted, lack energy, etc.



Not at all. A person with social phobia, for example, will be continuously quiet and yet be unhappy about it.

Well, then are you claiming I don't like doing anything?



Well, I have to say that because your suggestions are in such vague terms, such as "go somewhere and do something". If you word your suggestions more precisely then I can tell you more accurately if I did them or not.



Right, but you won't tell me what this thing _is_ which is possible and can be enjoyed.



I understand that they're iincredible generic terms which could describe just about anything. How did you decide where to explore first?



Right, but I'm asking how long you want each user of SL to spend doing this. I've tried doing this myself, and just found region after region empty of people, or full of people busy in private play.



For how long? Seriously, how long do you expect someone to work to get value from their US$10?



Who said they'd be spending money? Nobody's mentioned that. Are you saying that to have freeform RP a certain amount of money must be spent in an appropriate place?



Most individuals' behaviour, with _strangers_ in _unknown_ situations, is *very* highly based on initial conditions. And if you are trying to meet people, then before you do so, you are a stranger to them..

It is said that if you take this thread and stretch its posts sequentially on one page, it could circle the globe three times over.

I really wish we had updated forum software that used tags....so I could add a tl:dr to this one.

Well, if you would stop and think about what I said for just one minute, you'd probably realize that the previous statement was made in context of the entirety of SL, whilst the latter comment referred to any one specific venue at any one time.

Mixing contexts in an attempt to score points isn't going to work.



Then they can try to come back another time. I really don't see the problem.



Well, tell ya what. If you feel so strongly that there needs to be a system, and that it will help someone "find their social power" in SL, why don't you go ahead and start one up? I'm sure the masses of people who are so utterly lost in this big ol' world would thank you for it many times over. Seriously!



Then start one up! Those who "need" it will be most grateful, I am sure. *I* don't see the need, but I guess I am just too gifted as one of the "cool kids" to recognize the need.



I already accept that it exists, and will continue to do so. So what? That doesn't mean *I* have to tolerate it on my land or against my content.



Huh? You lost me there. Are you talking about someone who has crowd phobias that makes them act negatively?



I never made that presumption. No two people are alike, and will not have the exact same behavior, even if they try and emulate it. That said, they don't NEED to exhibit the exact same behavior as someone else to get results that are positive for themselves.

Chaos doesn't have anything to do with it. It's becoming a buzzword; a cliche, in this discussion.



I didn't say it "made it any better". I called it as I saw it. The fact that you recognize it is an important first step in CHANGING YOUR BEHAVIOR so that you CAN find a way to enjoy it. Do you understand where the train went of the tracks, and why? I even gave you an important clue in the observation.



You're crossing assertions; that response had to do with people placing themselves at the bottom via a self-fulfillment prophecy, not that they "must like it". I think these discussions are getting too long and we're losing track of the assertion trains.



That is because you are making the incorrect assumption that I am not paying attention to them personally, rather than not paying attention to their behavior. There's a big difference.

When they act like drama queens / attention whores, being disruptive, I ignore them because of their behavior. If they later come back with an apology for their poor behavior, I pay them all the attention they are due (well, assuming I don't mute them because it got THAT bad, and it has to be pretty damn bad for me to do that; then they are going to have to go through some other avenue, like a third party, to get that across to me).



There are bad communities out there, just like there are bad people. *shrug* Again, that's life.

Yes, we're pretty tolerant; it kinda goes with the territory.



Context. Like I said above. When they act like imbeciles, I will ignore them, or leave, or punt them, if they get disruptive enough. When they act respectful, I will pay them attention. It's a pretty simple concept.



It is my job to "accept it" insofar that "it happens". Will I tolerate it? Griefing? Depends. Infringement? Definitely not. Will people who behave that way be "dealt with"? In as much as such is within my power to do so, absolutely. Griefers get warned / banned / ARed. Infringement gets the perps reported to the content creators and LL. If it is *MY* content that is infringed, I file the DMCA notices myself.



Barring mental illness, EVERYBODY is responsible for their own behavior and the causal pathways leading up to it. Further, everyone is responsible for the awareness of their own mental state. Being ignorant of one's own mental state and resultant behavior is not an excuse.



Curious. I have never seen such a theater design in practice. Why would a theater put seats where the person sitting in them couldn't see the screen? Would seem to be a waste of money to me. Maybe they are for the sight-impaired people so they can enjoy just the audio track?



Those are factors in a decision; they don't FORCE the decision. For example, I *COULD* be working on a project right now, instead of debating with you here. It is late, and I don't feel like working on anything. However, I am not being FORCED to avoid work by my fatigue, I made a conscious choice to avoid it and instead come here to post. I am doing EXACTLY what I want to do. Now, I suppose I could use the fact that it is late and that I am tired as an EXCUSE to say my fatigue FORCED me to avoid work, but that would be disingenuous at best and, at worst, a lie.



..and I am not a psychologist/social worker. I can't help people who have some form of mental illness, nor should I be expected to do so. If their illness means they will sit there quietly in misery, no matter what I do or say to them, it is out of my hands. I have enough trouble dealing with my own mental state and issues to try and deal with someone else's.

I don't see a reference to "you" in that statement, so no, I am not claiming any such thing.



I don't have 10,000 years to come up with every possible example of where you could have gone, or what you could have done in singular terms, let alone in composite ones (factorials are a pain, let me tell you).

I can ONLY make general suggestions to you because I don't have ANY CLUE what you like, what you hate, where you might have gone, what you might have searched for, et cetera.



Living (your second) life. That's what it is. The specifics I *HAVE* to leave to you, because I am not you. I can tell you what *I* like, but I have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE if you like what I like. I have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE *WHAT* you like, period. I don't even know *IF* you like anything (well, except debating in forums, that is that much I am CERTAIN you like).

If you want someone to help you figure out the specifics, then you could have avoided 10 pages of forum debate, and just asked.



Well, typically, I am a methodical person. I started with the first one on the search results which fit my search criteria (which includes criteria in my head alone that I may not have typed into the search engine, probably because there was no way to properly specify it). When I arrived, I began a methodical search pattern looking for stuff. As for people to talk to, I talked to the first person I found who looked to me like they were active, or might know something about that which I was seeking (using information from their profile, for example).

I then would go to the next, and then to the next, etc. I kept track of promising ones to return to later if they were full, down, empty, under construction, whatever.

As for the Isle, specifically, I found it right off the bat, and went to it pretty much first thing. I also went other places afterwards as well, and continually explored, even after I had made the Isle my home.



As long as it takes. What else do they have to do in SL? SL is a journey, just like RL. If you're walking a desert between towns, keep walking; don't stop. What do you have to lose? If you stop, then you're turning the situation into one of those self-fulfilling prophecies again: "I'm stopping because I can't find anything!" No, you're not (going to) find(ing) anything because you're stopping.



As long as it takes. If someone is viewing the effort to find enjoyment in SL from the outset as "work", then they've already set themselves up to fail. The journey itself can be just as fulfilling as the destination(s).



If they are coming to our venue, buying our $10 avatars to use in their interactions, then we have the mandate to expand to accommodate them. You started this thought experiment about "buying avatars" and us housing "10% of the incoming SL population per week", remember? I am simply parameterizing it.



"First impressions", right? OK, tell me what the range of reactions to "first impressions" is, with probability factored in, versus all possible human reactions. What's the ratio? 1:100? 1:1,000? A psychologist would probably estimate it much greater than that. That does not equate "high sensitivity to initial conditions", and thus, makes chaos theory a very POOR fit to explain human behavior.

..and I wish we had a "Quiet in the Peanut Gallery" just for this.

Ok, trying to clear things up a bit here.

First of all, on Chaos Theory. The problem with saying that there is no chaos in social interaction is that if that were true, you would be able to guarantee things. But if I asked if there was any behaviour that would guarantee I'd get involved in things, you'd probably say no. But what does that mean? It means that there is an unpredictable factor involved - if there weren't, you'd be able to predict with 100% accuracy, and thus to guarantee. If it's unpredictable it must be either chaos or randomness, but as you say, most individual behaviour is fairly deterministic, and humans generally don't have the ability to be truly random, so chaos is the only explanation.

The fact that "they can come back later and meet someone" doesn't change it. After all, if you wait long enough it will eventually be sunny, but the weather is still a chaotic system because you can't predict with 100% accuracy if it will rain tomorrow. The fact that a 30 second diference in teleport arrival time can mean someone having to wait a day or a week for a particular experience is still enough to create chaos. Likewise, it's not just "first impressions" - because the attitude of a person to a stranger isn't just going to be based on first impressions, it's also going to be based on their mood which might have been influenced by how they got on with the 20 other people they met earlier that day. So now you have to find out the states of all those 20 people, but they also could have been affected by others.. and just like the weather, you end up with a butterfly flap causing a monsoon.

Secondly, on "mental illness". Unfortunately, nobody really knows what mental illness is. There aren't germs for it, and only in a few cases are there specific chemical combinations involved. Is social phobia a mental illness? Nobody really knows - whether someone is diagnosed with it or not is mostly going to be determined by whether they feel unhappy with it or not. So you can't just say "excluding mentally ill people" because you have no way of telling.

Now to the specifics:



I was afraid, but because the circumstances were very different for her. She was respected and giving social power in ways I was not; her contributions were clearly welcomed, whereas mine were not. I suspect she would, also, have been afraid given those circumstances.



I did actually think about starting up a system that would improve group matching, but it won't solve the social power problem unless it's _mandatory_. Otherwise, you get the "dating service" problem, where even using the service marks you as not being a cool kid (or at least it used to)



It isn't a self-fulfulling prophecy. If somebody arrives to a location 30 seconds after somebody else has already started something which has involved everyone there, then they are going to end up a "follower" in that interaction. They can go elsewhere, but they may also arrive at that new place 30 seconds too late, and so on. Statistically amongst millions of users there will be SOMEONE who has that happen to them EVERY TIME. That isn't a self-fulfulling prophecy; it's entirely independant of what the person does.



But the difference between that and being engaging and a leader can be 30 seconds.



Ok, but try living a day without believing that the things that you think are right, are in fact right. It's unreasonable to say people are blamable for having false information, and it's ESPECIALLY so in a world where all the experiences from which they could have gotten that information have been created by other people, and passed through a filter programmed by other people.



As I said, I'm using it as an illustration. If you have a pure social system and allow it to develop a pecking order, then 10% of the people will be at the bottom of the pecking order and have an inferior experience. In an entertainment product, that's equivalent to building a cinema where 10% of the seats can't see the screen.



Why are you assuming they have a committment to remain in SL for a certain period of time, if it's not entertaining them? Most likely they will move on to an entertainment product which delivers entertainment more readily.



You will be in for a rude surprise when you realize that each of them buys only one avatar, but the tier is due again next month, too.

I never said there was "no chaos in social interaction". What I said was that "chaos theory" doesn't apply to it in the way you are describing. There is a HUGE difference in those statements. Humans, by nature, operate on the same quantum mechanical framework as the rest of the universe, so they, theoretically, CAN be "completely random". However, they seldom, if ever, are, because our brains harness and channel that randomness in an extremely orderly way. Sure, some randomness still creeps in, but overall, humans are quite predictable creatures far more often than not.

The central idea in chaos theory is that SMALL differences in initial conditions, applied to a chaotic system, generate HUGE differences in results. For that to work with humans, you'd have to expect someone to radically change their response to small change in stimuli, like a 1-2Hz pitch change in another person's voice that they hear while interacting with said person. The brain is amazingly good at distinguishing such subtle differences, but it is also amazingly good at amalgamating and averaging subtle differences in order to build and recognize patterns, including behavioral patterns.

AS SUCH, "chaos theory" does little for explaining human behavior, at least on the macro level, which we're discussing right now. It may perfectly describe some aspects of how neurons fire in the brain to effect our consciousness and said behavior, but it simply doesn't work to explain what happens above that level.

No, there are no "guarantees" of anything in life. However, the vast majority of what happens to oneself in life is as a result of choices/actions one makes, rather than simply the "randomness" of circumstance. For example, the person who regularly gets "left out" of some activity because he is chronically late; if he makes an effort to be early the next time, voila! He doesn't get left out.



Yeah, but that just proves my point that it is NOT chaotic. If someone has had a "bad day", they are predisposed to having a bad interaction with someone after that point, thus, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when they allow what amounts to a normal occurrence translate into something which "continues" their "bad day".

If you analyze people's mental states during such a period, you will find that it wasn't a "highly variable" response to a small change in initial conditions, as most people will actually respond that way under similar circumstances.

The problem with the attempt to ascribe such behavior to "chaos theory" is that it fails to take into account that people are not simply lumps of matter which can only react/respond to physical processes; they are also just as capable of initiating such processes spontaneously. The notion that we can only react randomly to randomness leads into a dangerous state called the "victim mentality", where someone sees oneself totally as a product of the environment; that one's behavior is justified because it is simply a reaction to the world being so mean and cold, and leads, inevitably to not taking responsibility for one's own life.

So, sure, people *CAN* become little more than reactionary lumps of matter. However, even that is a CHOICE that they made.



Well, you can demean the point by muddying the waters all you want, but it ultimately doesn't matter, because I cannot help someone who refuses or is unable to help himself first, even if that self-help is nothing more than accepting help from someone else.

Thus, if a person has been explicitly offered participation in group activities any number of times and turns it down, choosing to isolate himself, I can only conclude that is where he is happiest, and leave him to it with the notion that the door is always open.



I wouldn't be. If someone was showing me the ropes, I'd learn it, practice it, and keep practicing until I got decent enough to fly on my own. People not being welcoming of my "noob state" wouldn't deter me. "Hey, I'm just learning here, cut me some slack!". If they were being snobbish elitists, I'd let them know such, in no uncertain terms (probably through my mentor first, though), and then go on to find a REAL group supportive of newbies, or maybe even found my own.

I guess maybe it is because I don't really care what someone else thinks of me, ultimately. My own self-worth is not determined by what others around me think it is. I mean, I like to have friends, I like having fun with friends, and I listen to what they say and think, including about me. If they are happy with me, I am happy. If they are upset with me, I want to know why. However, I don't let the fact they may be upset with me over something radically alter my view of myself.



I don't think it is the "stigma" issue which will be the most problematic, but the excessive amount of structure required to enforce an illusory "social" power structure. Most groups who try that ultimately, and often spectacularly, fail. Most of the reason is because respect has to be earned, not simply "transferred" or artificially "inflated". Those who are given undue respect don't value it, and often abuse it. Respect is the most important social currency, and using "wealth redistribution" techniques on it leads to some rather horrific social messes.



So, what problem are you trying to identify here? That they are somehow missing out on some activity that they don't even know exists? How would that make them place themselves at the bottom of a "social order" they don't even know exists?

If they SEE that someone else has occupied the available resources, they can do just like everyone else (probably INCLUDING the ones who are presently being helped) and WAIT THEIR TURN.

As for arriving late to a situation of which they are already aware is limited, the obvious solution of "show up earlier" comes to mind.



Hardly. Statistically, such a scenario is meaningless, as it has nothing to do with statistics.



No. Again, humans are not random masses of tissue. If someone was going to be a drama queen, it wouldn't matter if they showed up 30 seconds early or 30 seconds late. At some point, the pathos will emerge, because it is simply waiting for the right stimulus to prompt it into expression.



Welcome to my life; every day, my belief systems are challenged, and, every day, I make tweaks and adjustments. I don't follow dogma. Every time something happens to reinforce my beliefs, I reinforce them; every time something happens to challenge their veracity or accuracy, I test them for internal consistency. I'm not a critical thinker / skeptic just for other people's beliefs; I also critically examine my own when I am given notion to do so. Sometimes, that may come from meditation, or quiet moments reflecting.



It isn't about "blame", it is about "responsibility". One is given, the other is taken. That said, people are responsible for not only having, but retaining false information about themselves, even when told/shown that it is false.

"To thine own self be true" and "Know Thyself" aren't just quaint little catch-phrases from popular media.



So, you're saying that "pure social systems" are like shoddily-built theaters? Beyond the fact that such is ludicrous, not all social systems are built the same. For social systems which are built that way, where the "pecking order" results in some people being at the bottom of some kind of pyramidal construct, sure. My response is "don't get involved in those", unless that is what you want. They are not the only ones out there, by far.



Why did they bother with it unless they were going to give it a good shake? If they are only in it for instant gratification, they will most likely be sorely disappointed. VERY few people/venues are in SL to provide that. They can go back to WoW, or some other MMORPG, where they can just zone out and start killing virtual enemies again.

A social "game" like SL simply isn't going to work like that. If they didn't understand that before they got into SL, then it will become an important lesson, learned the "hard" way, if necessary.



You are making assumptions on the parameters which don't fit the point I was making at all. We don't have ANY problems with space right now for the number of people buying avatars, even if most only buy one or two. There are ways to scale the business model so that it COULD support much larger numbers, and we (or someone like us) would likely do that, if the numbers justified it.

I think you're applying chaos theory too literally (or maybe I'm applying it too figuratively?). What I mean is that at the moment you talk to someone, their mood - and by extension how they respond to your behaviour - could have been affected by a huge number of things that already happened to them that day. These things might not be "small" in an objective scientific sense, but they present exaclty the same problem as the butterfly that affects the weather does - from your point of view, there is no way you can know all the factors, and missing out just one is enough to make your prediction extremely wrong. Moreover, if you try to predict the behaviour of a large group of people then equally there is no way you can know all the factors that will affect them.



The problem is that most of the views that do involve "taking responsibility" are downright self-contradictory. They tend to argue that, by your behaviour, you can highly influence how others will treat you. The problem is, if that's true, then the same applies to everyone you interact with - by _their_ behaviour, they can influence how others (ie, you) will treat them. Which, in turn, would make you _not_ responsible again..



And I think that's unreasonable. You have no idea if they made a choice or not (you might think they should have done, but you might be wrong). You also have no idea if they feel that they were offered participation ("the reciever determines the meaning of the message".



You're sort of missing the point there - what I was learning, by observation, was how to start and get involved in an environment where, when she arrived, people immediately reacted with "Hey" or other interest signals. But that turned out to be a useless skill because I never got that environment; when I arrived alone, there was usually silence, and no response to what I said.



I'm not talking about self-worth though, I'm talking about value from SL. Whether I value myself or not is totally different from whether it's worth me invisting US$10 on that avatar. And you _do_ wind up caring what other people think of you - you said that you might "found your own group" but that will remain empty if others do not think much of you!



No, but it can be manipulated. WoW and other MMORPG type games do so very well - a player's "level" governs how useful they will be to a group, and yet is raised by non-social means.



Because a few weeks later they see the people who did get guided having fun and integrated into the sim, while they are not.



This wasn't a scheduled meeting. There is no time when you can arrive when it's impossible for someone else to have arrived 30 seconds earlier.



Right, but the problem with "self-fulfulling prophecies" is that nothing will happen to challenge their veracity. Those can be maintained forever even in the face of your style of thinking. And challenging your own beliefs in the absence of any evidence leads to insanity.



Except that most of these people are never told/shown that their beliefs are false. They are told/shown that they do not apply TO OTHER PEOPLE, but not to themselves.



But you've gone from "as long as it takes" to "a good shake", now. How many hours?



And if SL fails as a result of that, then people within it will also learn an important lesson..

I'm not applying it at all; I maintain that it simply doesn't apply, literally OR figuratively. Thus, every time I see you use the words "chaos theory" in reference to analyzing human behavior, I simply see "insert buzzword here".

The lengths to which you are willing to stretch it to apply to the situation are intriguing, but they nonetheless do nothing other than distort it beyond all recognition.

In addition, and this may come as a surprise to you, human group behavior is MUCH easier to predict than the individual behavior of the people who comprise said group.



The problem is that the word "influence" is not the equivalent, or even a synonym, of the word "control". If you are saying that you are yielding "control" of, and thus, responsibility for, your behavior to another, based on "influence", then that is wrong. It happens, though, but that still doesn't make it right; you're still responsible for your behavior, even when "influenced" to be "out of your (temporary) control". Otherwise, we'd have a lot more dismissals in court with the pat defense "he MADE me do it!".

Now, you can take up the argument that, yes, in RL, sometimes emotional torture and distress can cause people to behave poorly as a result. However, I will cut the legs COMPLETELY out from under that particular argument by pointing out that SL is NOT RL; it is COMPLETELY OPTIONAL and VOLUNTARY. RL is neither; that's what makes it "real". SL can have elements/facets of RL in it, but, at any time, the user can click that little "X" in the corner, and it all goes away.



Sometimes, a choice is made by simply not making a choice.

As for what they feel, if they fail to understand, or fail to express their feelings, it is SOLELY on their head. I am not a mind-reader. They need to learn to express themselves, or maybe learn to "listen" better. A good listener doesn't simply "hear", he asks questions to clarify things that aren't clear.

You might find that unreasonable, or even "unfair", but that is simply the way things have to be for ANY social system, designed or free-form, to work, by definition. You can't expect the antithesis of social behavior -- anti-social behavior -- to be integrated happily into any particular social system. We do have to accept that some people will exhibit anti-social behavior, but we do not have to tolerate it, or allow it to continue, in our societies. That's the whole point of incarceration and exile in RL terms, and banishment and muting in SL terms.



First, you expected to be treated as a veteran in the group while you were a newbie?

Second, greeting is a useless skill? I don't follow. I greet people I don't know all the time; I don't care if they fail to respond in kind. It is nice if/when they do, but if they don't, I just shrug and move on.

At any rate, I can't analyze the situation accurately enough to know what happened or why; too little information on the details.



That's a non-sequitur. I'm well aware that those two things are not directly related like that and, if you follow the thread back, you'll see that I wasn't referring to the cost of the avatar in that particular thread of discussion.



Game mechanics are orthogonal to social "standing" and behavior. Just because you attained (or bought via RMT, which happens a LOT) some particular achievement in a game doesn't mean you will automatically command respect for it. I've encountered PLENTY of people in MMORPGs who are noobs, but highly respected, or are long-time players, but behave like anti-social gits that no one likes.



Then they DID see it and know it exists, and weren't willing to be patient and wait their turn. What other reason is there? If they saw someone being guided, and weren't willing to wait, come back, or otherwise wait to take their turn, why would they blame the sim and/or staff for their "poor experience"? Who else should they blame?

Again, this is sounding more and more like that "instant gratification" entitlement attitude. One for which I have ZERO sympathy. If someone goes all emo over me doing my job for each person, making the rest who arrived afterwards wait their fair turn on my attentions, then tough noogies. I don't want them to get mad and leave, but that is on their own head, not mine or anyone else's.



I was referring to events which have limited seating or other KNOWN pre-existing limitations to which one WAS aware. Also, if one knows that the staff come on duty at some time, they can always show up early and have a better chance of getting access to the staff.

Regardless, it all boils down to the "taking one's turn" thing. If you didn't know about the resource, then you shouldn't feel cheated in any way. If you later find out about it, then go and avail yourself of it then, if you want. You'll still have to wait your turn, though.

Now this is what I've been referring to. That difference between "influence" and "control" - that aspect of the other person that determines how they're going to react to you, but that you can't affect, and that you can't predict either (because if you could, then you would have control) - that's what I've been calling "chaos" because of its unpredictability. I don't know if you want to use that term, but that's what I'm referring to, so you do acknowledge that it exists even if that's not what you'd call it. I'll call it "wakalixes" for the rest of this post.

On the responsibility issue - again it doesn't make sense universally. By that logic, surely I am not responsible for other people rejecting/ignoring me, since I can only influence them, not control them?



I think this is not quite right. SL still affects people in RL and can cause quite a bit of emotional distress. I've broken down in tears because of SL once or twice, and pressing X didn't help.



But assuming that "they are quiet, therefore they must want to be that way" is also reading their mind.



Remaining quiet isn't something that I'd call antisocial. In fact many people who do it, do it explicitly to AVOID being antisocial.



She wasn't a "veteran" - she wasn't much more known to the group than I was, she was just treated differently.



Sure, but in SL there is very little other than respect, and yet it has RMT..



They don't see someone being guided, they see the RESULT of the guidance - someone hanging out integrated in the RP of the sim with a similar or later join date. They don't know anything about how the other person got there, only that the other did and they didn't.



That doesn't work, though. You'd have to get up and ask if that door is really open, and if your leg will really support you, and if your cereal might be poison.. you can't challenge all your assumptions.



And I'm saying that's not true, because someone can have negative social experiences simply as a result of the people they happen to bump into having wakalixes that mean they'll give negative responses. Since they can only influence and not control, there must be a possibility that they'll end up with negativity no matter what. For someone to find that the _only_ people they encounter are in that kind of mood will be rare, but in a world of millions of people rare things happen.



Well, it's an essential perspective. Spending time in SL is time that I give up from doing other things; it requires me to be sat at my computer, not doing anything else, not going out, etc. "How long do you expect people to do that for?" is a perfectly valid question. The things you describe don't require that because they take place in RL and I'm there all the time.



Have they?

Not even close.

Humans, as social creatures, have what basically amounts to a "social API" programmed into us. We can use that interface to communicate and interact with another, and that person can use ours to communicate and interact back with us. Normally, interaction works by us exerting some influence onto the API's inputs, and the person so influenced responds in kind on ours. Some aspects of that API are connected to "prewired" behavior, either instinctual, or added onto the API by the person himself. Thus, he has potentially "yielded control" to others' influence. At any time, he can CHOOSE to take that control back, especially if other people are abusing it.

The upshot of this is that, in many circumstances, you can "control" and/or "predict" someone's behavior, precisely because they have yielded control to outside influence, either implicitly, or explicitly. For example, many people implicitly trust other people; this is especially true of children. This implicit trust often lasts until it is abused by another, then it is "upgraded" to "guarded trust". The experience may be something along the lines of being scammed by a con artist (or, for a child, being kidnapped/abused by a stranger).

Regardless, a person, at any time, can ALWAYS *take* control away from outside influences just as much as he can give it to same.

I don't object to your use of the word "chaos", as long as you don't try to drag "chaos theory" into it. I do agree that "probability" does apply to human behavior, and to circumstance.



No, they are responsible for rejecting/ignoring you, but you are still responsible for YOUR behavior which may have acted as an influence to that. In other words, if you walk up to a group and just start spouting off a litany of profanity, you are responsible for the influence which will (likely) result in you being ignored/rejected/banned (that's the predictable part). That's the whole point of the "social contract"; there are rules on both give and take for each person involved.



That's because you yielded control to influences from SL and other people. You may feel that closing SL "didn't help" at that moment, but you removed the influence and, thus, the control. Sometimes the most positive thing to do isn't the easiest or least painful thing to do. That's where you get notions like "the truth hurts", where the painful part is accepting it.



No, it's a default consignment. At some point, when all reasonable options have been exhausted, their behavior is simply pigeonholed as "someone else's (i.e., their own) problem".



I never claimed it was. Again, you're mixing up threads of argument. Regardless, while "remaining quiet" may not be ANTI-social, it is most definitely NON-social.



Well, as I said, I can't analyze it, because I wasn't there, and you revealing the situation in bits and pieces as it suits you isn't going to help me understand why you weren't treated similarly as she was. Something was different in your approach than hers, and it resulted in a different treatment and response set to your social participation. I will submit that whatever it was you apparently didn't perceive and/or understand it then, and still don't now.



Point?



Then they can ASK how the other person got there, and go through the commensurate process themselves, if they so choose.



Just because one CAN do a thing doesn't mean one MUST do a thing. The fact that I have the ability to question any belief or assumption I have doesn't mean I MUST do so at every opportunity, or without cause. Otherwise, it leads to a thing I like to call "paranoia".



More often than not, it IS true, though. If you're going to tell me that someone who is outgoing, nice, and considerate to others is going to encounter negativity so often as to completely discourage them from bothering, I will have to call BS. It simply doesn't happen, or if it does, it is no more than an artifact, and should be treated as such.

Of all the people I have encountered who whine about having "nothing but negative social experiences", the vast majority of the time, their own behavior, known to them or not, controlled by them or not, influenced it. In fact, one of the reasons some of them continually have negative social experiences is precisely because they dwell on them and whine to others about them. "I don't know why anybody likes me, I am shunned by so many". Yeah, that self-fulfilling prophecy comes home to roost hard-core at times, doesn't it?



..and "as long as it takes to succeed" is a perfectly valid response to said question, too. The answer has a more proper perspective embedded in it than the question.



You most certainly CAN fall in love in SL. You most certainly CAN make "best friends" with someone in SL. You most certainly CAN learn to appreciate a work of art in SL.

Thus, yeah, they DO require that. RL is not the sole domain of qualitative experience.



Apparently so, many such "virtual worlds" are here, have been around for years, and have every indication of sticking around for many years to come. I suppose that it depends on your specific definition of "success", though.

Just FYI, that's not what those who study complexity theory mean when they say "chaos" or "chaos theory". For an excellent intro at armchair philosopher level, read "Two's Company, Three is Complexity" by Neil Johnson. As an armchair philosopher myself, I'm not using the term pejoratively.

Yes. And my "wakalixes" represent all the factors in their head that might cause them to decide to take control away this time.



Sure. But at the same time, if people are just ignoring me, that's not my responsibility, right?



Sure, although at least some of the upset I was feeling was due to rejection and of course closing contact actually made that worse.



Just because it's a default doesn't automatically make it valid. If you're going to accept mind reading, why not accept it for any other explanation too?



If respect is all there is in SL, and RMT to buy respect is a illusion, then all of SL commerce is an illusion.



The other person will say something like "Well, I just got here and these people were really friendly and showed me around.." which only tells the asking person that they were rejected more. The other person may not have known that they were employed greeters or that they were waiting for people to arrive!

(Incidentally, another thing people frequently say is "I took a risk" - which is just as bad, because it implies that the majority who try to do that thing will fail.)



But then, how do you decide which beliefs or assumptions to question? And do you ever question the beliefs and assumptions that you use in deciding which beliefs and assumptions to question?



But that's a person's entire experience you're calling "an artifact"..

Also, remember that being accepted into a group that hangs out and talks about TV is one thing. Actually getting to be a dragon after you paid $10 is another!



In my experience, people who do that do it because others around them are talking about their own past social experiences.



No, it isn't, because for a virtual world that attitude leads to "catassing".



Sorry. All of the things you described _can_ happen in RL or SL, but in my case I was speaking in particular about SL.

That presupposes that there are always lots of factors, and that the majority of them hold sway. Such is rarely the case.



Sure, but at the same time, it could be your responsibility in the form of odious behavior you've been exhibiting, too.



Yeah, sometimes things work out that way, but at least you can get away from the hurt. Can you imagine the hell where you can't get away from everyone rejecting you?



It doesn't have to make it "accurate", it just has to be "effective" and "appropriate". I don't HAVE to know the exact truth of why, but I can make a presumption which allows me to get on with my life and leave the "lost cause" to her own devices. If she REALLY REALLY wants to interact, but is too clammed up inside her own shell to do so, even after repeated attempts by others to coax her out, what else is anyone supposed to do? It goes back to that "qualitative experience" thing, the difference is that I am not responsible for the experiences of anyone else but my own. In short, it is not my responsibility to make her happy.

As for mind-reading, I never "accepted it" as an explanation, so I don't know where you're going with that.



I didn't make that claim. Go back and re-read what I said. The RMT comment was an aside, not the central point, and it certainly wasn't inferring that.



It should tell them nothing of the kind. Not being availed of an opportunity is not the same thing as "rejection". That you choose to see it that way provides a critical insight into where your thinking process on the matter is going astray, though.

For example, my response would NOT be "oh, I feel so rejected! Woe is me!", but rather "Oh? Cool! Can you all show me around sometime? I'd like that, too".

It's all in your attitude, which, as I said, leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. One is more likely to lead you to loneliness and isolation, the other to happiness and inclusion. Who is most responsible for your attitude? Why, YOU ARE, of course.



Depends on the nature of the risk. I took a risk stepping outside today that a meteor might fall from the sky and kill me. The vast majority who try to step outside will likely succeed in living through that risk scenario.

I'm presuming that you understand the concept about seeing a glass, which has exactly 50% of its volume occupied by a liquid, as being "half full" or "half empty".



Through a fairly empirical process; when I encounter evidence which contradicts what I know / believe, I challenge both the evidence and the contrary knowledge/belief for validity. After being subjected to the "crucible of truth", if my belief proves itself, it will be reinforced. If the new evidence proves itself, it will become the basis of my new belief. I should point out that no single piece of evidence will likely cause this to happen, but it will accumulate with other evidence and experiences over time which will eventually force a re-evaluation.



I've yet to meet anyone who has had such experiences their ENTIRE life. Somehow, I doubt you have, either. Even if it only applied to SL, I still would call it that.

Yes, I am calling it an "artifact", a "fluke", whatever word you want to use to describe it, because that is precisely what it is. Use the right word for the job and all that nonsense.



I don't follow; what's the contrast you're attempting to draw? "Being a Dragon" doesn't require an audience; it is something you just "are", regardless of how much you "paid" for an avatar, or that you acquired one at all.



In my experience, it doesn't matter what the topic of conversation is, it will almost invariably turn towards their own personal "issues", most especially in private conversation. They want acceptance so badly that they literally drive it out of others they encounter, which feeds the problem even more. "I'm so rejected!" *everyone runs away and hides* "See? I am so rejected!". Textbook self-fulfilling prophecy.



If you prefer to see it as a quantitative exercise, then sure. "When's my next level up?" "Another 25,000XP to go!". The choice to shun RL in favor of SL is the same either way, but you simply cannot ascribe arbitrary limits to something which is TOTALLY subjective by nature. You can't make a "social meter" which goes up every time you type something in chat with a group, and then get a "ding" when it fills up, whereupon you make a new friend. Instead, it happens when it happens. If you want it to happen more quickly, then you're going to have to LEARN and PRACTICE the skills necessary to make it go quicker, and UNLEARN and NOT PRACTICE the ones which slow it down. Hell, that's even true with MMORPGS and their quantitative game mechanics. Using an unoptimized character buildout will make you take longer to level up than an optimized one.



So? SL doesn't change the fact that qualitative experiences cannot be measured with an arbitrary system, or ascribed a "number of hours to success".

Mm. Just because a factor doesn't change the decision this time, doesn't mean that the factor doesn't exist that time.



It could be, but I'm not conscious of having exhibited odious behavior, and I don't think that many other people in this situation either.



If you're going to say "you're not a mind reader", then you shouldn't accept any explanation that involves you knowing what she is thinking, even if it's a "default" explanation. By saying that "she doesn't want to interact", you are accepting mind-reading.

It isn't your responsibility, true, but that doesn't help her..



You said that in spite of people being high level, or buying items via RMT, many people were not respected. And this is exactly the point I've been making: SL doesn't make it clear that without respect, the items that you RMT will be worthless, meaning that a lot of customers are likely to wind up frustrated and feeling cheated.



Except that you aren't talking to the guide this time, you're talking to the former newbie who got involved, and they don't have any particular responsibility to help you. I mean, my experience has been that people actually tend to freak out quite a bit if they're just asked "How did you get where you are?"



Yes. But, in this case, I see it as 50% customer dissatisfaction.



And if a prophecy is self-fulfilling, you will never encounter such evidence.



Yes, but again, when you have a world of millions of people, even if only 1% are flukes that's still tens of thousands. You can't just write them off because they're a small proportion of the population.



Um... ok, I mean having an experience in SL which creates the impression of being a dragon. If you seriously believe that you "are" a dragon in RL, then.. um..



And that's usually because they have nothing else to talk about, usually as a result of the sparse experience that comes from being rejected. Plus, of course, the other people don't need to run away and hide; even if they don't want to talk about her being rejected, lightning will not strike them from above if they speak a non sequitur.



Yes, but again, the choice to make it totally subjective in that sense is just a design decision. Most people have a top limit of the amount of time that they will consider it healthy to spend in a virtual world/game. If they cannot recieve value for money in a sense that they enjoy, within that top limit, they will dislike the world and feel cheated. The means by which that VFM is delivered is up to the world designers and if they choose pure social, knowing that it suffers from the problem of pure subjectivity and not allowing for that, then that's their bad decision.

But the reason I'm talking so much about time is that, well, it affects the experience a lot too. I used to do freeform RP a great deal on another site but gave up because typically I would spend 3-4 hours sitting waiting for someone to turn up before getting to actually RP for maybe 20-30 minutes. Now from my point of view, that's a waste of time, and on SL it seems to be even worse. Others have told me that's not the case for them, but when I ask them what they do different they can't answer, so I conclude that it's wakalixes.

The only place you're likely to run into content you can buy in SL that's presented as something you can use to "win" anything is if you get involved in one of the mini-games (like Bloodlines, or the various combat systems) that DO fit your model of an online game.

For that matter, the stuff you buy in Farmville using real money (or scam website offers) might not ensure you get the highest score among your circle of farms. If you're getting them because you're trying to "win" the only way you can really be sure they'll do you any good is when you buy DLC for a single player game.

Stuff you buy in SL might make you more attractive, or impressive, or whatever you're trying to present yourself as. So will your ability to customize and modify what you get. So will your taste and behavior. These are ALL factors. The fact that there are factors OTHER than the stuff you buy, find, or build doesn't mean that they "don't do you any good".

Well, I went to a decent private school in Sydney, then a major US university, and spent 30 years in the process control industry as a programmer and network administrator, then I joined a startup, and it tanked, so I'm starting over as a contractor. Is that the kind of thing you mean? That's the kind of thing you're asking about. Yes, really, it is. The answers aren't really all that different in SL and RL.

If you want to do deep RP, that's a pretty good ratio. If that's not enough for you, and that's what you want to do, then pretty much anything but dedicated RP MUDs and Mucks aren't going to cut it for you, and those don't generally last more than a year or so. SL is more like a 24/7 Worldcon, and you're looking for a 24/7 Pennsic.

Yes, I believe I alluded to that circumstance.



*shrug* No way for me to know, really. I can only go by my experiences, and they tell me that MOST cases, getting ignored by others is not simply a default action, but one usually prompted by the (mis)behavior/demeanor of another (I think I said this already, but it bears repeating).



I never claimed it as "knowing". If anything, it is a "deduction". As far as what *I* can do about it, it suffices just as well as "knowing".

The point is, if it is indeed not the case, *she* is the ONLY one who can correct that deduction, precisely because I cannot read her mind.



So? I cannot help those who refuse to help themselves first. Even still, it isn't my responsibility to "help" her. I MAY do so, out of the goodness of my heart, but I can't do any more than I can do. At some point, she's going to have to meet me, or another, at least half-way, if she indeed wants it to happen. That's she's not even willing to try speaks volumes as to what she wants.

More than half of figuring out one's life is figuring out what one REALLY wants from it; the rest is the pursuit of it.



No, I said that in spite of people being high level, sometimes BECAUSE they bought the characters/items via RMT, instead of actually, you know, EARNING them, some people didn't garner the respect that they supposedly thought they earned from the effort. The point was that any "respect" they earned was not directly related to their status, but how they presented themselves. Anybody can "earn" a badge, but simply wearing it doesn't automatically confer respect by itself.



Why should it have to? Anything you buy in SL is local color, stage dressing. Wearing a Dragon avatar confers no more ability to behave/think/act like a Dragon than a ferret avatar. If it helps you "get into" the mindset, and enhances your interaction with others concerning Dragons, great! However, it isn't a guarantee of such.

If they felt cheated, it is because they entered into it with the wrong assumptions and wrong perspective.



OK, so then you ask the newbie with whom to speak on the issue. No, he doesn't have any responsibility to tell you, but if you ask politely, why would he have any reason to NOT tell you?



While I wouldn't freak if asked that question (and, as a Guardian, I have been asked it quite a few times), I would say that tact is an important interpersonal skill, as well as knowing how to ask delicate questions without scaring off the person whom you are asking. For one, that question is rather ambiguous. You might instead start off with a friendly greeting, talk a bit about the region, and then ask what all there is to do around. You might even ask if there are any people charged with the task of introducing people to it. Just because you didn't encounter them doesn't mean there are none.



Some "half empty" customers simply cannot be satisfied, no matter what you do.



Au contraire, you will encounter PLENTY of such evidence. Whether you recognize it or not, choose to accept it or not, or choose to re-evaluate your beliefs or not, and then ultimately change yourself for the better or not, is solely up to you and you alone.



I have extreme doubts about your figures, but nevertheless, I am not "writing them off". They are writing themselves off by failing to realize their experience is an artifact of circumstance (presuming that it actually is, rather than due to their attitude/behavior), and then quitting over that final failure.

To be frank, I don't believe that such people exist. Instead, I think people whose choices and behavior have caused their "social failures" are being excused and given that "born under an unlucky star" status by apologists for behavioral irresponsibility.



It doesn't matter; it is just as true in either case.

When I played table-top RPGs years ago, I didn't need to dress myself up as my character to be able to behave and be treated like my character; that was the whole point of RP. If I *DID* do so, it might have added a bit of flavor to the Saturday Night Gaming sessions, but it was hardly necessary. (Though, LARPs, on the other hand, are a different kettle of fish).



If you don't have anything else to talk about, then avoid talking about your misery in group interaction if the group is not a therapy group for said affliction.

No, the other people don't NEED to run away and hide, they can simply mute her or ignore her instead, even though they may WANT to run away and hide. It's not a fear of being "struck by lightning", but rather a feeling of "oh no, not this shit again!".

Those who don't have a lot to talk about usually learn that the best way to find something to talk about is to LISTEN, OBSERVE, and ASK QUESTIONS.



No, the subjectiveness of qualitative experiences is BY NATURE, not design. LL didn't choose to design SL for qualitative experiences, they chose NOT to design it as ONLY quantitative. That is a HUGE difference in philosophy. I applaud their design decision for leaving it up to the residents to choose to provide/have either a structured or non-structured experience. That freedom is a strength, not a weakness, and that you choose to see it as a weakness doesn't make it so in any way, shape, or form.

As for residents, SL doesn't cost anything. Basic accounts are free, and you don't have to buy a damned thing to experience the vast majority of SL, so it has an extremely large "VFM", by default (infinite in mathematical terms). If people cannot "receive value" for free in a sense that they enjoy, then maybe SL isn't for them. I'll admit that SL isn't for everyone; no virtual world is. Hell, no product or service is; it's part of that "you can't please all of the people all the time" thing.



Yeah, sounds like you needed a new venue and new friends.

As for asking what someone else did that is different than what you did, how can anyone answer that? To identify something as a difference, they have to know specifically what you did in order to contrast with their own actions. Even here in this thread, I can't tell you that, because I simply don't know what you did, specifically.

I will say that, again, such is not my experience. From day one, I found plenty of groups to get involved with on a variety of subjects, founded a few of my own, or joined into the founding of others, and generally have had a rather enjoyable social experience in SL. No, it has not always been "perfect"; there have been bad situations, including a failed love interest, but on the balance, I have found it rather pleasant and positive.

However, since I am apparently the "cool kid", it was fated in the stars to be, wakalixes notwithstanding.

I've generally found that ignoring seems to be the default.



She is not responsible for your wrong deduction, though.



Again, no, it doesn't. Maybe she would like to try but feels she cannot.

Moreover, we're not really discussing _your_ responsibility here, but a global problem with SL. It's something that SL could do something about, even if you couldn't.



Partly. In most of those games, for example, a high level healer is automatically respected simply because they are so useful in terms of the game system. SL doesn't offer anything like that.



And I would believe that if it wasn't for the fact that when I suggested that shops should carry signs warning customers against those wrong assumptions, people thought I was insane.



That's true, but they can't cover 100% of the population.



I'm talking about the whole population, remember. If there's a 50% failure rate, that means that 50% of people's attempts fail, and 50% of customers are unsatisfied.



If it were, then why would anyone ever choose not to?



No, we were discussing the probability of _all_ a person's attempts failing. That includes the ones they make even if they don't decide to give up.



Well, the reason why I'm being a bit cautious is that people who have the "I just _am_ a dragon" attitude tend to be the ones who, it turns out, are deeming themselves to be RPing while they are just dancing in a regular club ("I'm in human form learning about this strange culture". Which is just stupidly convoluted.



Or they can do neither and talk about something else.



No, it is a weakness because a structure is inevitably imposed.



Well, it _is_ wakalixes. You were a positive fluke, unlike the negative flukes I described before.

But the fact that those factors are completely dominant are. In SL, it honestly doesn't matter what av you have unless you have above-average respect in a group, because it won't make any difference. You could probably make the same complaint about Farmville, in fact. But things like WoW give you higher stats in the game for your money, which doesn't depend on anyone else.



I'm not at all sure what you mean by "deep" RP, so I can't really respond to that.

That is unfortunate.



Insofar as her behavior is influencing/reinforcing it, and not providing any influence to mitigate it, yeah, she is.



Yes, it does. If someone wants something, but isn't willing to try to put forth the effort to attain it, instead falling back onto the old "I can't" excuse, then there's nothing anyone can do for her but simply leave her with her misery. What else should anyone be expected to do? Give her attention she doesn't deserve to reinforce what becomes leech-like behavior? I don't think so.



So, you want to impose responsibility onto the rest of SL residents for something that no one else should have to be responsible? Yeah, that will work. Not.



Not hardly. A high-level healer that can do the JOB decent enough is respected. Some nobody running around with a high-level healer character screwing up group runs from ineptitude is going to get derided, dumped, and ignored hardcore. I've seen it happen in LOTS of PUGs, and even within guilds.



Correction: Linden Lab does not. Residents do.



That's because you can't legislate common sense. Some lessons have to be learned the hard way. Signs saying basically "hot stove will burn you" are almost insultingly ridiculous. Besides, then you have the argument that people won't read the signs and STILL "feel cheated" anyway. How much attempting to instruct people on common sense should we have to do before it is enough?

I don't think you're insane, by the way; I just don't see the value proposition in it.



They .. don't .. have .. to.

Most people are not emo instant-gratification entitlement types; they are patient, and willing to deal with most situations that come up without getting their arse on their shoulder over being "left out". In fact, the ones who aren't are in the MINORITY. Quite a few also don't need their hand held; they are "old pros", and can get along just fine without a greeter or introduction.



Attempts at what? You're making an assumption that some particular "failure" is automatically going to result in an unsatisfied customer. That simply isn't so, even in the Real World.



Who knows? Could be unrealistic expectations, like a deep seated need to throw pity-parties where they are the center of attention, and shun all contact otherwise. Could be they are moping/sulking about some situation and refuse to stop because they are embracing their misery a bit too tightly. Could be anything. It doesn't matter; fact is, it is still their choice. NO ONE can force them to be happy and participate.



Yes, that's right. Did you read what I said?



Umm. OK. Judge. Jury. Executioner. Got it.



Right, by ignoring her. "I wanna talk about my misery!" "Hey, Fred, did you hear about last week's game?" "Why, no, George, what happened?" "Dammit, why does no one ever pay attention to me?"



I sure hope the hell not. <.< The moment Linden Lab imposes some kind of arbitrary structure on all forms of social interaction is the day they can turn off the servers because they will be empty.



To quote the Monsters: "There are a lot more of us than you think."

Don't think so? Take a poll.

Except they're not. Honestly. I regularly get compliments on my avatars. If I hadn't spent I-don't-want-to-think-how-much over the past four years on avatars I totally wouldn't: my alts with generic looking avatars don't. It matters.

Sure does. All the stats in the world won't get me ANY respect in Warcraft. Because I suck at combat games. I could have a hat of +5 everything with a hat of instant kill socketed into it, and I'd still suck.

So, do I hang around WoW boards and moan how terrible Warcraft is because no matter how much you spend you won't get respect? No. I just don't play a game I don't enjoy.

A hat socketed into a hat? Wouldn't that be a tad recursive? <.<



Hell, I am a competent Guild Wars player, and people STILL bemoan how much I suck. Of course, it is not usually me who is sucking, but the person complaining expecting me to do my job and half of his, too.

Of course, the compliments from someone seeing you rush one of the Boss NPCs and pretty much burn him down solo more than makes up for the all the whines of the 'tards.

But by the same logic, your behaviour is influencing/reinforcing her deduction that she should stay quiet because she's not welcome, and you aren't providing any influence to mitigate it...

That's my problem with all these responsibility arguments - they never allow for what's good for the goose being good for the gander.



Now you're tacitly assuming that she's not doing it because of laziness. You don't seem to accept the idea that she may be not doing it out of fear, or because she believes it's the way to fit in.



Nope. It doesn't have to be residents. It's a virtual world; it can be THE SERVER.



Yes, but having skill at playing a twitch game is very different from having to be "the respected one" in a group. Amongst other things, it isn't competitive (not in the case of a co-operative function like healing, anyway).



.. But only as subsystems that reduce the functionality of SL. I might be able to get respect by playing Bloodlines well, but insodoing I have to give up my ability to define _for myself_ what it means for me to be a vampire. Which is, um, kinda the point of SL, isn't it? Well, even if it isn't, it's what the "cool kids" get to do.

In WoW, you also can't define what it means to be a healer, but no-one can.



It's only common sense if you are applying the common sense that relaties to a _society_. If you are applying the common sense that relates to an _entertainment product_, and especially to a MMORPG, then it is perfectly common sense to believe that items bought from a store will have some defining effect on your character. Moreover, a fair number of volunteer helpers will actually tell people, or imply to people, that such an effect would exist.

Obviously, anyone who is cheated will not have a full understanding of what is going on. That's how all cheats work.



You're assuming that distribution. But it practice, it only takes 1 person above the capacity the sim can handle for there to be at least one fluke in the system.



The real world isn't an entertainment product.



Actually, pretty much anyone can - it just involves tradeoffs that they probably aren't prepared to make.



You said that people's decision to give up over a single failure made them unsatisfied.

I said that the people in my percentage are the people for whom all attempts fail, even if they decide not to give up. If they never decided to give up, then they would I suppose carry on making failed attempts until they died.



Um, no. I was merely describing a type I'd encountered before - I wasn't saying that you were of that type. In fact I was hoping that you would be able to describe that you weren't, and why and how. I wonder why you didn't.



Or by talking to her about something else.



Ah, I said that there was a structure. I didn't say it was imposed by LL. People, even when "free", naturally build a structure and impose it on others.



If everyone on this forum answered Yes, the percentage of the population would still be so small as to be nothing more than a positive fluke, especially given that positive flukes are much more likely to remain online than those who are not. Even if you could name ten thousand such people, the percantage would still be in the positive fluke range.