Limiting theft by limiting creation

OK, just get a room, you two!

Only if it's the same hat.

If offering to include her in conversations, and asking her questions to effect such is influencing her to stay quiet, thinking she's not welcome when everyone is doing their damnedest to make her feel welcome, then there is something seriously wrong with her mental state that NO ONE but her can fix. It has nothing to do with logic, because her behavior IS NOT LOGICAL TO BEGIN WITH.



Your problem is that you make up ridiculous scenarios which don't match your assumptions for the sake of arguing a point which has not been (or cannot be) made. The argument DOES allow for what's good for the goose being good for the gander. You're just creating a set of nonequivalent assertions and calling them equivalent, is all. She's not being responsible for HER behavior, yet you expect everyone else to be not only responsible for THEIR behavior, but HERS as well. It simply does not work that way.

Has it ever occurred to you (since you think sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right?) that SHE is responsible for influencing/reinforcing the behavior of others who are now shunning her or simply moving on to leave her to own devices?



So she believes the way to "fit in" is by NOT "fitting in"? O.o If she's lazy, then she's still responsible for the effects of being lazy, as well as BEING lazy. No one else is making her lazy.



I don't interact socially with the server; it isn't a very interesting conversationalist. I don't think your hypothetical drama queen will get much out of it, either.



You've obviously not played a lot of "twitch" games (of which MOST MMORPGs are NOT), if you think they aren't competitive. Even MMORPGs can be extremely competitive. If you are a Monk in Guild Wars (the primary healer class), you're always in demand. However, if you get into PUGs when there are plenty of Monks around, if you give any indication you don't know your stuff prior or during a run into an elite area or dungeon, the group will drop you and then ridicule you in open chat back in town whilst they advertise for a better Monk. At times, it can be a challenge to get into a group at all.



Yeah, that's the whole problem of what you keep suggesting in terms of "structured social systems". The whole point of a structured system is to define everything with rules, which entails limiting choices and avenues to a set that promotes the specific kind of social interaction desired by the creators of said system. It is why I am highly resistant to such being imposed by LL on the general SL population; simply because it won't work.



That's right, they have to operate within the stricture of the rules and story underpinning the game. However, that doesn't have ANYTHING to do with any resulting social behavior. As I said, game mechanics are ORTHOGONAL to social mechanics.



The virtual society that comprises SL is virtually indistinguishable from a RL society. It is only dressed up in different clothes. The same social rules apply generally.

When there is no rules system, anything bought from a store will not have a rules-based effect on your character. In SL, you "buy" your AVATAR; no MMORPG I am aware of does that, so there is no analogue that anyone should be comparing. Even still, not everything bought from a "store" in a MMORPG has a rules-based effect on your character. Minipets, dyes, holiday masks, etc have no effect on your character's abilities AT ALL; they are only cosmetic additions/alterations.



Then they are the ones deceiving people, and that is on their heads. None of the staff at the Isle do that, because it is simply not true. In fact, I have never had anyone try to sell me an avatar, spouting such a ridiculous assertion that it will "enhance my SL" (WETF that means).



That's the reason why you LEARN to understand what is going on BEFORE you act. Taking shortcuts in knowledge and understanding risks pain and learning lessons the HARD way. This is a common, PREDICTABLE behavior in people, because they are often interested only in instant gratification, often believing they are even ENTITLED to it. Well, there are no end of people around who are happy to sell them something to sate it, regardless of whether it actually does or not. That should come as a surprise to no one but the terminally naive.

The knowledge and opportunity to understand is there; people have only to avail themselves of it.

Speaking of predictable human behavior and the problems with "instant gratification", here's a video you should watch.



Did you or did you not say that these are the people who REPEATEDLY fail to "arrive at the right time" or whatever? If so, why, all of a sudden, is it only one attempt to get into one sim that defines their issues?

Stop moving the goalposts.



That's a matter of perspective. Regardless, it applies to "entertainment products" as well. Ever played a game where your character "died"? That's a failure. Did you throw up your hands and stop playing then, or did you continue on with your next life, and then play the game again when all of those lives were used up? Even if YOU stopped, MILLIONS of other people continue to play and "fail" at such games all the time. That's because most people realize that "failure" in an entertainment product isn't terminal. Even in RL, it is not necessarily terminal. In both cases, "failure" can lead to learning and understanding, many times even moreso than simple success.



NO. NO ONE can FORCE them to be happy and participate. If you have to be FORCED to do something to make you happy, you'll likely hate it even more. Requiring FORCE means you are resistant to it. Someone countering your resistance with force will NOT make you "feel better" about it.

Having to do something to make someone happy that transcends the social norm has nothing to do with being "prepared", since no one should HAVE to do it in the first place. Rewarding poor social behavior only reinforces said behavior.

I am curious, though, what do YOU expect everyone else to do in that situation with her?



No, I said:



Where "their experience" is their string of "failures", ultimately capped off by one final failure which is the one where they fail to realize that "their experience" (i.e., all of their previous failures, NOT JUST ONE) is an artifact of circumstance.



Yep. I know. That's what I said, too.

My contention is that those people, where all of their so-called "failures" are totally outside of their control, simply don't exist. Either some or all of their failures are due to circumstances within their control, or they haven't had significantly more failures than a few standard deviations beyond average.



I wasn't assuming you were referring to me. That sentiment in itself is rather callous, odious, and demeaning, no matter to whom it refers. It shows a clear misunderstanding of the basic precepts of roleplay, and a shallowness of character that some might even call bigotry or prejudice, even though I think that might be a tad extreme, but still pretty bad, nonetheless.



It would engender the same response; if you're not talking about what she wants to talk about, you're ignoring her. That's the nature of the type of person we're talking about here.



That's the way it is supposed to be. The beauty of SL is that there is no "imposition on others". People choose to impose it on themselves, or they can opt to go elsewhere. There are no end of places that impose only a limited or even no arbitrary structure at all. However, there is NO universal structure imposed on ALL of the SL population by anyone. Even the "social contract" itself is not respected in all places, nor does it have to be (outside of the Community Standards, anyway).



Well, that's the beauty of statistical sampling. Once you have enough samples, you can accurately infer things about the rest of the population, with a very high confidence interval. The more samples, the more accurate the inference. However, there is a diminishing return beyond a certain point, so there is a maximum number of samples that are "statistically significant" in any particular test.

Ahh.. so no heterogeneous recursion? Darn. I was hoping to implement a B* tree hat. >.>

That isn't what the vast majority of groups do if somebody they don't know arrives, and is quiet; they ignore them.



No, I'm saying that you have to pick one.

If nobody is responsible for other people's behaviour, then it's not their fault that she feels unwelcome - but it's also not her fault they ignore her.

If people are responsible for other people's behaviour, then it's her fault they ignore her, but it's also their fault she feels unwelcome.



The way to "fit in" is to stay quiet and let others speak, not interrupting what they are doing.



If she really wants to participate and can't, then the server could have her avatar do so anyway.



The point is that the scaling is better. You have to be a good Monk in the sense of knowing what you're doing, but you don't have to be THE BEST Monk, or even in the top 100. And even if there are lots out there better than you, they can only be in one group at a time and a group can only hold 4-5? people (or something like that). It isn't like SL where the person who's the most popular roleplayer and builder can start their own sim which attracts hundreds of users and leaves anyone who doesn't like their way of doing things high and dry.



Sure. But my point is that just because LL doesn't impose a system that doesn't mean that one won't be imposed. What it means is that the "cool kids" get to define for themselves what a role means, and everyone else has to play along with them. Outside of that they have two choices: remain alone (which includes starting a group that turns out to be empty), or join a group where _nobody_ sets the rules and thus there is no real meaningful interaction between roles because there is no common understanding of what the roles mean. And the problem is that only a minority of the population can ever be in that "cool kid" position, defining their role.



Yes, but I wonder how many of the naive buyers of these items know that. They may not be used to SL yet.



Of course. By being careful, people can avoid becoming the victim of a cheat. That does not mean that the cheat isn't a cheat.



I didn't say that was only ONE attempt. It's all their attempts.



Yes, but when I talk about "failure" I am talking about _PERMANENT_ failure "as it turns out". When I say 1% fail, I don't mean they jjust fail once; I mean they fail every time they try, and if they didn't give up, they would continue failing until death.



Speak for yourself! Certainly when I was a child, I remember being very scared to do things, but when I was forced to do them I discovered I enjoyed them after all.



I don't expect the others to do anything. I mentioned how SL could solve the problem: if the others are open to her participation, the server could make her avatar participate regardless of what she typed.



Right, but why is that any better? Why is realising that "I am doomed to fail because I'm just one of the unlucky ones" making it any better?



Well, I don't really see why you see it's so offensive. As I said, I have certainly met people who had claimed to be role-playing while doing that type of thing. I've seen them elsewhere too - on rpg.net, someone claimed to be playing a Ninja on SL, but when asked about it by another user he replied that what he was actually doing was going sailing and hanging out at clubs (because "hey, a ninja might do those too".



But don't forget that she doesn't necessarily want to talk about her social issues.



Right, but they can "opt to go elsewhere" but that elsewhere will probably have its own standards. Or they can go somewhere with no standards, but that will just be a regular nightclub where people talk about TV, because with no shared standards there is no other basis of interaction.



And even all of this forum would not be "enough samples".

That's one way to fit in, and it works fine if you're playing the role of Jane Goodall, but it's not the only way.

I don't have to be the best ferret, or even in the top 100.

I'm not talking about that situation in that case. Stop changing the subject out of context.

In EVERY GROUP I have ever been in, publicly open to participation, new people arriving are greeted by one or more participants, and OFTEN (not ALWAYS, but OFTEN) are prompted to participate. If they REMAIN quiet, not returning greetings, or bothering to participate, then, YES, they will be ignored beyond that point, because that is what their behavior is prompting. It doesn't take mind-reading, or hand-wringing, or anything else. People who CHOOSE not to participate, EVEN AFTER being included, are left to their own devices.



No, there is NOTHING TO PICK. There is NO DICHOTOMY. You are fabricating one to skewer repeatedly like a straw man, but it has nothing to do with anything I said.

Let me simplify it for you:
1) You are responsible for your behavior.
2) You are responsible for the EXERTION of INFLUENCE on others' behavior, because of #1.
3) You are NOT responsible for the actual behavior of others. They can choose to allow themselves to be influenced by your behavior or not.

An example to illustrate:

If you strike me with a weapon, for no reason (or none related to me or my behavior, anyway), you are responsible for that action. No one else is. In addition, you are responsible for any particular influence that is exerted on my behavior as a result of that action. If, in return, I burn you to ash afterwards, I am responsible for that action, but it doesn't absolve you of responsibility for the influence you exerted on my resultant behavior. In short, "you asked for it". That's what "taking responsibility for your actions" means.

There is no dichotomy here. The same rules apply to BOTH people in the example.



Except that people are still responsible for the influence they exert on other people's behavior. They don't have to be responsible for the actual behavior, but they ARE responsible for prompting it.

Another example: If I were a cad, and said something really nasty and uncalled for to her without being prompted BY her, I am responsible for my behavior, AND I am responsible for the influence it has on her resultant behavior. If she curls up in a ball and hides away from the world as a result, she is responsible for that behavior, but I am STILL responsible for having a hand in it.

Let me put it even more simply: I am not responsible for anyone elses' behavior which has NOTHING to do with me or my behavior. In addition, I am not the most responsible party for her behavior; only she is. So, no matter what, she STILL has to take responsibility for her behavior regardless of who or what prompted it, IN ADDITION TO any responsibility someone else has for prompting it. She simply cannot lay total responsibility for her behavior at anyone elses' feet but her own.



That's not "fitting in", that's "fitting around". Presence is a required first step to "fitting in" and participating, but it isn't the only one.



What, like have an AI stand in for her and make her avatar appear to be participating? Two problems with that I see: 1) It doesn't help her enjoy the situation, since she's not the one doing it; and 2) there are NO AIs remotely good enough to socially mimic human interaction.



Yeah, but then you have the issue with the Monk then whining about getting into bad groups all the time, since all the "better" Monks get into the "better" groups. It has nothing to do with scaling.



Many RP/game sims are started by otherwise mediocre roleplayers. It doesn't take being a stellar / popular roleplayer to start a popular RP sim. It takes 1) money, 2) building talent (or more money), 3) game design talent (or even more money), and 4) management sense (or still more money), 5) advertising (which is still more money), and 6) time (or lots more money). Daryth Kennedy doesn't RP at all, but there's still plenty of free-form RP at the Isle (though it isn't a core activity, by design).

The fact that ONE person who builds a RP sim that isn't someone else's cup of tea HARDLY leaves said someone else "high and dry". There are HUNDREDS of RP sims out there. Try another.



Not over the entirety (or even majority) of SL, it won't.



..within their own small sphere of influence, of course. That sphere of influence may be as small as just a handful of people in a clique.



..or 3) find another group which plays and RPs like you desire, or 4) start a group that doesn't remain empty. A group where _nobody_ sets the rules does not imply that there is no meaningful interaction between roles, and can most certainly have a common understanding of what they mean. It also does not mean that there are no rules.



The "minority" who choose to be, versus the "majority" who choose not to be, for whatever reason.



Well, there are two ways of learning it: the easy way, research and ask before doing; and
doing, then finding out later. Naivety doesn't automatically infer stupidity. I can be naive about the way some system works, but I most certainly can ask about it before putting myself in the way of its gears.



So? I never claimed otherwise.



Actually, you did. You said that one person over the capacity of a sim is enough to make it a fluke in the system, completely contrary to previous discussion and argumentation.



1% of SL residents do not fail in such a way.



SL residents are not children (or at least are not supposed to be). That's part of "growing up"; learning to make your own way, instead of depending on others to make your way for you. In other words, TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELF. Random strangers are NOT your "parents"/"elders", and you shouldn't expect them to be, either. If they CHOOSE to be, that's a different matter.



..and just how would it do that? Further, why do you think that watching your avatar interacting is going to be even remotely as satisfying or encouraging as interacting yourself? You might as well be watching TV.



I didn't say it was "better". I am pointing out why you're doing nothing but arguing with yourself, because you think I am making a point that I didn't actually make.



I am not surprised. If people are doing whatever that makes them happy, no matter how they want to characterize it, or justify it to themselves, and they are hurting no one else, ESPECIALLY you, why the hell would you care, and, further, who are you to judge?



If you want to move the goalposts again by changing the parameters of the example, fine. I am done with it, though.



..but but the sky could be green! or they eat nothing but throat lozenges! or they dance "Thriller" to Beethoven's 5th!

You can conjure up all the nightmare scenarios you want, but 1) it doesn't make them true, and 2) there are still more places to go to than you can find nightmares to FUD yourself into the closet.

You're wrong, again, about the "no shared standards" places. I am given to believe that you've never really experienced real "free form" RP, because all the ones I have been involved with have more varied "basis of interaction" than you've apparently ever experienced.



Wrong again. Statistical population samples, even for a population of millions, can easily be drawn from the number of people active in the forum. It all depends on the nature of the test, and the sampling methodology.

Well, I have _never_ been in an RP group to which this applies. The majority which I have found drop new visitors into an extensive mall, then banline them off from anywhere else.





In some situations, the correct thing to do to fit in is to remain quiet.



1) the AI would only get her involved and then cut out; 2) the AI could find someone else on SL who is successfully fitting into a new group at that moment, and work from their sentences to capture the human dimension.



At least they are in a group, though.



Right, but that's still a tiny fraction compared to the number of RPers out there.



Right, but the majority still have to choose between one of these group structures to join.



For 3) there is no guarantee that such a group exists; and 4) can only work for a minority of the population. (Since at least one other person has to join the group, only 50% of people can start groups that way.)



You have no idea that they choose not to be. As I mentioned above, there can never be a majority founding grousp.



Yes. One person over the capacity of a sim is enough to enable flukes to occur on that sim. If every sim is one person short, then a complete fluke can occur.



No, the proportion is probably much larger!



And SL is an entertainment product, not a challenge for life lessons.



It isn't, but it's better than doing nothing.

Plus of course, there's always the other option: "Participate now or your hard disk will be formatted."



I don't mind at all if they're enjoying themselves that way. But if I find out that somebody who's been saying to me over and over how possible/easy it is to RP on SL, and then in fact it turns out that they meant doing that kind of thing, then I'd disregard what they'd said.



Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "free form" RP in that case. I've been involved in sort of playful SL sandboxing, if that's what you mean?



Even then, the number of people active on the forum isn't an even sample; it tends to consist of the people who are more active on SL and like it more.

WTF? I wouldn't call that "an RP group".

Sorry. To be accurate, I should have said "an RP sim" - although I presume most of them are run by groups.

Many of the larger RP groups have an information area where you must read thier rules and even think of a character and fill out a character sheet before RPing. Often this area is in the shopping or mall area. Most of them do allow you to at least observe with a tag after you have gotten the rules.

Exactly. You have to be approved by one of a small group of people, and until you are, they will actually make you wear a tag warning people to _not_ let you participate. That's the reverse of what Talarus seems to have been saying.

I haven't kept up with the whole conversation, but yes some RP places are at least a bit guided. They want a common starting point and understandings for the story. Some do not.

That is unfortunate. Keep trying. They exist, and there are many more than one.



Yeah, if you're trying to "fit in" with an audience at a show or exhibition, like a music concert, rather than what we've been talking about, which is socializing and RPing with a group.

If that is what you think is correct when socializing or RPing, then you're going about it the wrong way.

Learn the right way, instead of complaining that it isn't working out because you don't know how to play.



Develop it, then. Let me know when it is ready.



So? They'll still quit because they don't like the groups they get into. It all comes back to the same problem: instant gratification fail.



So? The existence of any number of RP sims isn't exclusive of more coming online. If that was the case, nothing new would ever come to be. The fact that more new RP sims come online all the time proves the point.



..or start their own.



That's why it is one option out of 4 instead of the only option.



Your math is faulty. Theoretically, 100% of residents can start a group, and each group could have 25 members (including the owner), if everyone flatly evened out joining, and that is limited only because we have a 25-group limit.

Not everyone WANTS to start a group. The vast majority are happy with the groups they find already in existence. The ones we are talking about, the TINY minority who are happy with nothing available (assuming they actually tried everything out there; a fact of which I am extremely dubious), can EASILY start one with PLENTY of resident base from which to draw. In addition, being in a group does not exclude one from creating a group, nor does creating a group exclude one from being in others. The only question becomes if one is able to make it interesting enough for it to draw other people.

Leadership isn't easy. Not everyone is cut out for it. Everyone thinks those who lead are given that attention and respect for nothing. In some cases, it may be true, but in most cases, it is the culmination of a lot of time spent socializing, and a lot of hard work running the group behind-the-scenes.

It is the same problem I ran into back in tabletop RPGs. You would have players who were like "I can GM a game! It's not so tough!", and did so; and then learned THE HARD WAY just how much work it is to set up just a SINGLE EVENING's entertainment for the group.



..and you were wrong, as already pointed out. I don't have to "have an idea" that they chose not to be. The fact that they aren't indicates the choice made.

You seem to think that "coolness" is something either inherent or given selflessly by the masses to the few. I bet you have never once stopped to think that someone could EARN that "coolness" through hard work. In that vein, I'd like to introduce you to another common-sense concept called TANSTAAFL.



Yes, and meteors can fall out of the sky and kill people, too. Come on, can't we keep this at least REMOTELY realistic?



Only in your dreams/nightmares, whichever you choose to have.



..which proves my point. Hell, it proves ALL of them related to all this "downtrodden-user-who-can't-be-a-cool-kid" nonsense.



It IS "doing nothing".



Yeah, that will really work as encouragement for easily-intimidated types... at least for them to never bother to install SL in the first place, or uninstall it as fast as possible afterwards. (I am assuming/hoping that was an attempt at sarcasm/humour)



Then it is beyond clear that you have no understanding of what RP really is.

A fun example: during one table-top gaming session, we had our fantasy characters sit down at a big round table at a taveern in-game, pull out some dice, some parchment, some ink and quills, and played a roleplaying game within the game that was basically an anachronistic version of "M & M" - "Merchants & Magistrates". It was a challenge to RP characters who RPed other characters, but it was extremely entertaining.

Thus, if you have a problem with someone who "believes" himself to be a Dragon in RL pretending to be a human in SL, then you obviously do not understand the concept of RP, or the depths of what it can entail.

Besides, how do you REALLY KNOW that there isn't a Dragon sitting on the other end of that avatar? <.<

I mean, you keep asking me how I know about something I state with veracity that I can't possibly know for sure. The same principle applies.



That's one form of it. You get together with others in a social group and RP whatever comes to mind, starting your own thread of story, or following someone else's.



That's an assumption. Do you have the statistics to back that up?

Even if so, it can be compensated for by adjusting the sampling methodology or the test itself.

That's because what Whyms is describing is that "structured social experience" you have been interjecting after we started discussing this subject. Initially, we were talking about "free form" or "unstructured" social/RP experiences and why some people couldn't get involved into them. Later, you started injecting the "structured" concept as some kind of panacea for those who couldn't get along in every "unstructured" one they tried.

The fact that you have to be "approved" in one of those is simply part of the rules, and they (generally) are applied the same to everyone. The reason they make you wear an OOC/OOP tag is because you're not yet ready (ie, don't have your character entered into the system) to interact with people already in the system.

In a MMORPG, the equivalent would be the "character creation" phase. In most games, you can't even communicate with anyone else whilst creating your character.

That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with with "social exclusion", which you seem to be hinting at here.

If someone doesn't understand the difference, then he/she can ASK to have it explained.

Now that I think of it, I SURE hope you're not going to use this as a reason why people feel "socially rejected".

I don't see why it's so unreasonable to believe that if people are talking with each other, they probably want to do that and they shouldn't be interrupted.



Not at all. If the skills are wrong, delayed gratification can be the fail: people will continue using wrong skills for months and months, never realising they are wrong, but just waiting for their delayed gratification.



It doesn't prove anything, because many of those come online, remain empty, and then are closed down as failures. I've been involved in one or two of them and it's a painful process for everyone. Why do they stay empty? Because there are not enough people interested. If there were less existing RP sims, there would be more people still looking for a place to go.



And that's the practical problem. As I discovered, what I found is that people were being pulled into groups where they _didn't _really like what was going on, because they couldn't possibly make a group interesting enough to compete with the advantages that others offered. Thus you ended up with the situation - and this was with a particular RP sim, which I won't name for obvious reasons - where up to 75% of the people involved resented it, because they didn't like the way things were done there, but had no ability to compete because in order to do so they'd have to pay for a sim, build it from scratch, etc - when most of the really good such builders and participant were already "settling" for the existing one. And let's face it - if you're having to "settle" for a group you don't like, you aren't going to leave it in order to "settle" for another group you don't like run by someone else who didn't like settling!



I have done that and I have seen friends do it.



No, it indicates that they aren't. You have no idea that this was the result of a choice.



No, I'm sure they do earn it. But the point is that it's earned in a competitive way - it's "graded on the curve", so to speak - such that no more than a certain percentage of the population can have it, no matter how hard they work.



But at least something is happening.



Yes, it was.



I don't have a problem with somebody believing themselves to be a dragon in RL, if they really want to. What I object to is people saying they can RP things on SL, when in actual fact it turns out that what they are doing is doing a very bland and generic SL behaviour (clubbing) and then retrofitting in their own heads an explanation of why it's RP. I mean, by that definition you could role-play a Dragon in World of Warcraft.. or a shooting game.. or how about Guitar Hero?



Ok. I haven't seen very much of that, though.

No, what I was saying is that although LL might try to make things "unstructured", what actually happens is that a structure gets imposed, as you see here. The person who runs the sim has, de facto, set themselves up as the one to provide structure. What I'm saying is that a structure designed by LL, who have a vested interest in everyone on SL, is better than a structure designed by a random unelected resident who - very often - has a much narrower interest. Yes, there are RP sims run by people who are very kind and who try their best to satisfy visitors, but ultimately it's still the vision of that one organizer, not any of those visitors.



I think people DO feel rejected by those sims. Why hope it's not a reason? People can _feel_ anything, about anything, for any reason or no reason.

Zindra.
OpenSpace.
GOM.
XStreet SL.
...

You REALLY mean that?

If they are doing it out in the PUBLIC, and other people are showing up and joining in without incident, "interruption" from others is obviously welcome. That doesn't mean you need to come in and totally hijack the RP/conversation from the start when you show up for the first time (you might be able to do that later, once you get some experience and make some friends who know that you're doing it for fun, and not to be a rude ass), but you should feel free to greet, listen, and join into the conversation, if it interests you.

THAT is why it is so unreasonable to believe such, because it SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE.



Trust me, if you get into a group who even halfway knows what they are doing, you'll get PLENTY of suggestions on build optimization right then and there. Of course, you get the chaff with the wheat, but if you continue to be the lodestone of the group, it is because you chose to not improve yourself.

Delayed gratification in itself isn't a fail situation. Just like honesty, it is a virtue, and it has its own rewards, even in the face of failure.



I wasn't aware that one or two constituted "many". Even still, the failure doesn't alter the fact that they are there, that more are created every day, and that there are more places to go, if people are interested in them. So, yes, it DOES prove what I said.

In addition, you're contradicting yourself, yet again. On the one hand, you say that there is no place for someone to go, then you say there are too many places for people to go, so many that they can't be sustained (and yet more open all the time).

The only thing this tells me is that you have a set of preconceived notions based on little evidence, probably from a singular personal failure in this vein, and have not really done much in the way of researching what is REALLY out there.

I can easily find dozens of popular RP places that have been around for YEARS, and always have plenty of people in them who are enjoying themselves; and I really don't even go out all that much myself!



"I can't! I can't!", such a familiar mantra. They couldn't possibly because they didn't want to TRY. Worse, they CHOSE not to try. So, yeah, they suffered. Wah.



Great, a bunch of malcontent whiners "trapped" by their own malcontent. Classic.

You know what I do when I get to the point where I "resent" something that I am supposed to be enjoying? I MOVE ON. May take a while, because I will try to change it for the better, but when I can see the writing on the wall that things will never change and will never get better, I'm gone.

Yeah, to build something up nice takes time, effort, and money. The people who built the existing place that "75%" were unhappy with also spent that. If those malcontents aren't willing to put forth the effort on their own to have what they want, then they have other options: suck it up and learn to enjoy what they have, or move the hell on.

Those people could even have gone to one of the many "open" RP areas and started small with their own group, building it up the way they liked it. Hell, there are people out there who are willing to bankroll the creation of RP sims for a cut of any money earned. You simply have to figure out a business plan. If you can get 30 people to agree to pay $10 a month, you can rent a private sim. If it isn't worth $10/month to a small group like that, then it is apparent that the group has more problems than simply finding some place to play.



How do you know you won't like something which doesn't even exist yet? Prejudiced much? The whole point of following someone else who won't settle to give you what you (and they) want, is PRECISELY BECAUSE they won't settle. That's how many alternate communities and groups get started. Forking is a natural and positive process.



Then you should try to understand what we're discussing in light of it.



Everything in life is a result of a choice. The choice may have been made misinformed, or even under the belief that there was no choice, but it was still a choice made. This is ESPECIALLY true in virtual worlds, because, AT ANY TIME, you can simply "unplug" and walk away.



It is not competitive in all cases. Sometimes, it is "win by default". Even still, in a competitive sense, it isn't necessarily a bad thing. It gives those who succeed some feeling of achievement, and those who do not a goal to work towards. Nothing is permanent, either. Today's "cool kids" are tomorrow's "losers" and vice-versa.

No, it isn't "graded on the curve" at all. I have been in several groups where EVERYONE who participated was a "cool kid", and had an enjoyable, positive experience, with a fair share of time in the spotlight. Most of them also had NO imposed structure, even!

However, I guess if one is a "glass is half empty" type, one will take any failure in the worst possible, permanent, self-deprecating way. *shrug* Oh well.



Something is ALWAYS happening. You're breathing; your heart is beating; the wind is blowing; the sun is shining. It still doesn't change the fact that YOU are DOING NOTHING.



Really? You came off sounding pretty deprecatingly on that point a couple of times. Sounds like a waffle to me.



If that is what it takes for them to enjoy it, why the hell do you care? "I object!" What, are you going to ridicule, ostracize, JUDGE them for it? I ask again, how is it hurting YOU? Maybe it is as I suggested: an enjoyable mental exercise.

That, or maybe the underlying problem is that you object to other people enjoying themselves and not giving you their enjoyment for nothing in return. "You're having fun and I am not; you should be made to share that happiness with me!".

I think you need to lay that gavel aside for a bit and do some self-examination before deciding picking it back up (if ever).



You need to get out more.

Well, the attitude of most of the RP sims - with the "visitor! do not talk to!" tags - suggested to me that this attitude was common among all SL RPers, even in sims that didn't have tags.



I'm not talking about build optimization, I'm talking about the skills of _getting into_ a group in the first place. If somebody doesn't get into a group because they're behaving wrongly but don't realize it, then if they were expecting instant gratification they will notice the lack of it immediately. If they were prepared to delay gratification then they will delay.. and delay.. and will never notice the skills problem until they decide to stop delaying.. which may be never.



A place that is empty doesn't count as "a place for someone to go" and RP.



Again, you have no idea that they made choices. Furthermore, the reason they didn't try may be because they didn't have talent, but why does that make anything any better? "Sorry, person A over here gets to set the terms of RP because they have the correct genes, and you don't have them, so you don't get to. And the really fun bit? Those genes are nothing to do with RPing."



That forgets that the people who created the existing place have significantly raised the amount of effort required.



If you can get 30 people to agree to pay _anything_ in SL you're probably in the top couple of percent.



What I mean is, they won't settle because they're thinking "I wanted to do that and didn't get to, so why should I help someone else do it?"



No. Choice is a specific mental process involving comparison of alternatives. You have no idea if this process occured or not.



It would be reasonable if it wasn't for the fact that most of the time the "goal to work towards" can't actually be worked towards because it is not recoverable, or is based on talent, or on other factors outside a person's control (like timezone or online hours).



You know that's not what I meant. Having an AI get you involved in things isn't great, but it's better than not being involved in them.



You don't seem to be understanding me here - I'm not complaining about them enjoying it or doing whatever they like. What I'm complaining about is them TELLING OTHERS how easy and friendly it is to "role-play" in Second Life, without mentioning that the definition they're using of "role-play" is so far from what most people would mean in that context. If people enjoy pretending to be a dragon while playing Guitar Hero then good for them, but they shouldn't go around telling people to buy Guitar Hero because it's so great for dragon RP.

..or not. Quite a number of places have no imposed structure, either. The Isle doesn't have a "structured social system", outside of the staff and some basic community rules, not unlike SL itself in a greater sense.



..or not.



I have to most strenuously disagree on that point. LL has no less a "narrow" interest than anyone else. That, and their history is littered with "epic fail" with regards to managing communities, let alone their customers.



..and there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with that. That's the whole point of SL! "Your world, your imagination", remember?

If any one of those "visitors" wishes to express their vision, they have the exact same opportunity as anyone else to see it fulfilled. Whether they CHOOSE to fulfill it, or have the CAPABILITY in themselves to fulfill it, is another matter entirely.



Because it is, for lack of a better word, retarded.

If someone complained to me that they felt rejected by the process that EVERY DAMN PLAYER had to go through to create their characters and get involved, I'd tell them to take the chip off their shoulder, suck it up, bear down, and get it done so they could get into the game. In other words, they're acting ridiculous and need to get a grip on reality.

By the same token, people should feel the same way about the character creation screens in MMORPGs, because it means they can't just install the game and jump right in with a character pre-generated and handed to them. "ZOMG! I AM SO REJECTED BY WOW!! *baw*". Ridiculous.

(There are games like that, though. A few RPGs I have been in, you get your character handed to you by the GM, and you have to play it to the hilt)

Yumi, they are only asking you to be quiet until you learn the rules, catch on to the story, and figure out where you want to try and add to the story yourself. They are asking you to have a bit of fore thought before jump in. I don't really think that is too much to ask since you will be forever changing the story for everyone.

Which is a good thing. Most RPers want the story to keep growing and changing. Which is exactly why they want you to join in and not just stay quiet.

When I was a nipper I had no problem rolling up characters in Traveller, which could take half an hour if your character happened to die in one of the later stages of character generation and you had to start over.

But these days I don't put up with that. So do I whine about it? No. I don't play games I don't like. Amazing!

Again, you need to get out more and collect more evidence before rendering such judgments.



That's not how delayed gratification works. Delayed gratification doesn't mean you ignore feedback and fail to improve. It means you don't expect a reward until AFTER you've put in a requisite effort, rather than getting the reward and putting no effort into getting it afterwards (a la "instant" gratification).



That is because you are a "glass is half empty" type.

Me? If I found a cool RP place, I'd talk with the owner to find out why it was empty, and then make him a deal to bring in an RP group to occupy it, probably even paying something to help sustain it, as long as we could use it to RP "our way", at least to some degree. I would then get some friends together that I know who might be interested in that kind of RP, and get a group started to use it.

See the difference in attitude?



I am not going to say this again. YES, I EFFING DO KNOW THEY MADE CHOICES, BECAUSE EVERY DAMN PERSON IN THE UNIVERSE MAKES CHOICES ABOUT EVERYTHING THEY DO OR DON'T DO.

Stop trying to pawn off the "victim" mentality on me; I'm not buying it.



Talent can be acquired/learned. Oh, did you mean "they are too lazy to acquire talent" amongst the myriad of other excuses for such anti- or non-social behavior? If so, then too bad for them, then; that is their own problem.

So a person's GENES are responsible, now? You do realize that some of the most disabled people in the world have made some extremely significant accomplishments IN SPITE OF their disabilities, right? It's almost insulting to hear someone who is able-bodied and capable of an achievement complain about not achieving when standing next to someone who is NOT able-bodied in a similar fashion who HAS succeeded with flair.

No, I am still not buying it.



EVERYTHING starts out small and insignificant. NOTHING is created perfect and complete in an instant. I know that is a serious blow to instant-gratification types out there, but tough noogies; that is life. Suck it up and put forth the effort to be a winner, and you'll have a shot at it. Sit back and whine about how it is too hard, and you'll ALWAYS be a loser.

It is better to have run the race and lost than to not have run the race at all.



Thank goodness I am such a "cool kid", then, eh?



Ah, selfishness. Yeah, I am not surprised. Why should anyone bother to help someone else achieve something that everyone wants if they can't do it by themselves? Well, except to actually achieve something else that everyone wants, INCLUDING themselves. So, no one bothers because they can't see past their own unenlightened self-importance. Natch.

I'm supposed to feel bad for them, why, again? <.<



The process is ALWAYS occurring, EVEN subconsciously. "Fight or flight" being a common example. We're not mindless lumps of tissue with 100% pre-programmed responses to stimuli. We gather information from our senses and experiences, construct it into a set of states regarding our existence, and navigate through those states, then repeat the whole process. The "navigation" part is nothing more than a set of choices we make. Left or right? Pain or pleasure? Self or others? Not all choices are binary, or even opposites, either.



In other words, if one excuse won't do, then seek out others.

If something is important enough to bother, someone will choose to bother. If it isn't, then they will choose otherwise, and shouldn't expect to reap the results of choosing to bother in that case. Most obstacles can be worked around, given time and consideration.



But, they aren't involved. Even assuming you can get such a magic AI to work in the first place, someone watching it interact in their place does nothing for them. What happens when they switch off the AI? Are they going to just parrot the responses? What? You think people won't notice that they've been talking with an AI the whole time when all of a sudden the behavior changes from what appeared to be an experienced pro to that of a newbie?

If you want to talk about "rejection", let me tell you.... if I start interacting with someone, and later find out I have been interacting with an AI, I'll be pretty annoyed. If I wanted to interact with AIs, I would seek them out. I don't need to log into SL to do so, either. I find that would be a waste of my time to the degree that I wouldn't want to deal with that person at all, not the least of the reasons is the level of deception what they did represents.

I'd RATHER deal with a REAL newbie than a completely fake non-entity ANYTIME (though, some people still qualify for the latter <.<.



"Role-play" is a generic term. It can be used to describe any number of different styles and situations. If someone is deceiving others through unspecified use of the term, that's a different matter entirely. It is also not what you started out talking about, either.

Besides, I have to ask, WHO has ever done that? That's, like, such an extreme edge case that it would almost have to be a singular event. If someone said to me how great it was to RP Dragons in SL, and then took me to a HUMAN night club, then just ran the dance machine for a few hours to exemplify that, I'd conclude the person either didn't know 1) what RP is, 2) what Dragon RP is, or 3) was playing a stupid prank on me. No matter which it was, I would likely not interact with that person again, without some other redeeming quality.

ZOMG! I REMEMBER THAT!

I did that, too. The yearly "survival" checks or whatever it was when you were going through the last part of your skill training. The GMs eventually said "ignore that rule", so we could hurry up and get through character generation and GET TO PLAYING THE GAME.

God, that was soooo dumb. I think the game designer responsible for that rule later apologized for it, too.



I know! That, or FIX them so that they are more enjoyable.