Drama around Views program - Maybe just a big misunderstanding?

Trying to be absolutely fair can often be highly counterproductive. Imagine if LL were soliciting feedback on how to improve the scripting language. Would they be better served asking those that know LSL inside and out and have pushed it to the limits? Or should they hold some sort of lottery where someone might "win" who's never touched LSL and has no interest in it at all? The same principles are at work here I think. These people didn't win a contest. It would diminish the goals of this program to treat it like one, and since it's LL soliciting the input it makes complete sense for them to choose who they think will best meet their needs without being hamstrung by having to treat it like a game.

I would like to know when I was at a Linden haunt with a Linden nearby me. I am looking forward to your answer Newfie. I sure hope you have pics or a convo to back this statement up because as far as I am concerned you are not saying the truth about me and I don't much care for that! I am only speaking for myself and NO one else.

As i've already stated before, the specifics I wont be sharing, as I used an alt to do part of my checking. You are entitled to believe me or not either way, as I still intend to stand by my statement.


- Newfie

Cocoanut,

I actually do recognize your viewpoint, and agree that there are situations where it can be beneficial to open it up to an application process. However, not everything in life can be done by committee - that is an impossible way to work. What I have a problem with is the marginalizing of the very people who did end up with this opportunity. In this case, LL decided that they would hand pick who they wanted, as is their right to do. What would have been productive would have been to say, ok, next time, can you please open up the process to others? What is not productive is all of this hyperbole about perks and being handed things on a platter and how unfair everything is. That does absolutely nothing except create a divisive environment. You have completely overstated the importance of this panel - they are not joining the LL board of directors, they are not the Holy Council of Eight, they are eight people that have earned LL's respect and in return they are being asked their opinions on various topics on an advisory basis.

All that you have done by talking about goverment and undue influence and FIC this and privileged that is marginalize a group of people that don't deserve to be treated as you have treated them. You are going down the same path of not being able to separate the idea from the people behind it - these are real people you are arguing about, who have worked hard and should be proud to have been chosen. You have tried to turn it into a thing of scorn, and that is ultimately what is unfair. It would be so much more productive to ensure that future additions to the panel are more diverse than it is to spend so much time and effort bashing this group and this process.

So you preemptively knew who to follow about?
Wow.

I think it'd depend on what exactly kind of "improvement" to the language would be on their minds, actually ^^

i mean: some people can often 'push things to the limit' _in spite of_ tool limitations, and having found work-arounds no more consider these limitations an issue. While at the same time average user finds these same limitations too hard to work with. By seeking input from the 'bleeding edge' only, the company is pretty likely going to miss out on feedback what they could do to improve the product in the eyes of customer base much wider than 'the few, the proud, the enlightened'.

In your particular example, that could be asking that random user _why_ scripting never caught their interest. It might after all be personal preference, but at the same time it might also be some very simple issues with language itself. Ones that never even register on the radar of experienced scripter. Or for similar, SL-related example, it could be difference between getting feedback on how there should be easier options to torture prims vs how to make the building tools more intuitive to someone who's just starting to try build something. And i think you'd agree that tackling _either_ of these areas could be considered 'improvement' of building tools.

This is all pretty theoretical of course. Just to point out there can be more than one way to look at things -.^;;

Preemptively? Not at all. But having been watching LL do this same basic song and dance for roughly 2 1/2 years, one starts picking up trends, and learning by experience the most likely places to target for results.

Some things just come from long experience on the matter. Watching LL play their favoritism games is neither a new development nor a particularly secretive one.


- Newfie

Valid points, Joannah. I'm just saying if I needed a plumber I wouldn't call the florist just to be fair.

Also, if I wanted to get broad opinions about LSL (or some other specific topic) from people of all levels of interest the most efficient method would be some sort of polling or forum thread. If I wanted to get into the nuts and bolts thoughts of people who work with it every day that I know have a lot to say on the subject I'd want to meet face to face with a whiteboard handy. I'm speaking philosophically here since I don't know what the exact goals are for this meeting (nor feel any entitlement to dictate what they should be or concern about the input they'll receive).

Just from curiosity, if one wished to have an election of sorts, in which sl members could vote to select a group of perhaps ten people to, for example, go visit Linden HQ, where would one find an online voting system that would serve that purpose?

Also, are there plans for a video-SL-RL simulcast of part of the LL-Chosen1s get together?

Well, I don't mean it as hyperbole, since it is what I believe. But like I said earlier, walking down the aisle in the store, it occured to me that we are all getting a bit crazed about it, including me. When you talk about something over and over like this, you start kind of losing touch with it, really. That is probably what you are picking up on from me.

As far as this business about me attacking those chosen, I have already explained why that is not true. I would have to be putting down my own self, and my own talents and abilities, if I were to believe that. I never believed that. I was a chosen one once. I was hand picked. I worked hard. I got an opportunity. I was proud of it. I am a real person. If I marginalized this group of people, I would be marginalizing myself and my own talents and abilities.

It should thus be abundantly clear to you that I am not coming from that place whatsoever.

You are right though, that I could be a bit more diplomatic about it and a bit less appalled. Next time, I'll try that.

coco

Me oh my. And I thought you were an honest guy who just happens to disagree on an opinion.

Hi Alliez, don't take this schoolyard bitching too seriously! You know what to think of people who "know but will not tell their sources - of course"!

Definitely, that'd be going quite a bit too far <g>

re: the program's goals... from the reply Torley gave, it sounds like it's basically case of LL listening to concerns of their users commenting SL is growing 'too fast' and losing touch with community, and reacting to it by getting 'back to roots' with this personal communication thing. Which means that, giving LL benefit of doubt here a) i've been wrong about the f2f part being mostly publicity stunt and b) someone (sorry, can't recall name) got it right in one of relevant threads, speculating that LL is perhaps trying to 'listen again to its playerbase' and simply doesn't have any real infrastructure nor experience how to handle something more widespread than these small meetings on personal level.

mildly curious now what will become of it, but guess we'll see... o.O

My guess is that we'll wonder what all the fuss was about

Probably nothing. It's weird how some people are thinking LL will now be making policy changes and major decisions based solely on what these 8 people (8 of us I may add) have to say. I can't get over how upset some people are about this. Shouldn't we be sort of pleased that LL is making an effort to speak with it's customers? I'm sure they'd fly us all there if they could. That's just not feasible though.

Hi again Gwyneth - if you can find my post between all the bitching and whining!

You know - even though a good thread on certain topics usually degenerates into a verbal schoolyard shootout within a few hours here - the real advantage of a forum (compared to a real schoolyard) is that you can still lead a sensible discussion with someone by simply skimming over the other posts. It gets harder on the weekends ... But it is possible. Oh, the wonders of modern technology.

And I really admire your "stubborness". Lets call it "determination". I like that better.

You are a very polite Lady, Gwyneth, but, as I have said, I am not sure that your interpretation is wrong or mine is true. I guess both are tinted - as usual - by past experience. What makes these guessing games still harder is, that - while I am a huge fan of Robin, too - Linden management is not allways an epitome of clear and precise communication. There is often lots of room for interpretation.

I was not involved with the community roundtables much so I miss that bit of information/experience. I only read about some of the results on the forums. And while I agree with some of your assumptions on advisory boards (I have been on a few and have assembled another one), there are many sets of criteria how to assemble one in the corporate world. In my experience it is rarely a democratic process and - while I am firmly grounded in democratic principles (Prok calls me a Social Democrat; LOL) - I believe a represantative assembly of customers would usually not lead to a good advisory board. BTW: I don't believe that these 8groups will develop into a real advisory board.

The huge problem with all these Linden activities about gathering customers opinions, or customer "input", is one of perception, it seems to me. Many residents - even some of the vocal advocats of the "it's only a game" party - perceive SL as a kind of nation. (I am not talking about you specifically, even though you - like me - seem to see Second Life as an incredibly interesting socioeconomic laboratory, too.)

Most of us are currently living in more or less (representative) democratic nation states in First Life. So we naturally assume that the decision making process in SL should be a bit like in First Life politics. Some others are thinking in more feudal models, with Linden Lab as a ruling aristocracy. These residents are thinking in terms of "petitions to the king" or "guilds" at work. These words are rarely used but if you look behind some of the suggestions ... these are mechanisms you have found in medieval europe under the terms I am using.

But Linden Lab is a company and Second Lfe is a commercial service! And - while companies should definitely get as much customer feedback as they can get - it is totally different how they collect it and how they integrate this into their decision making process. I don't want to argue too long about the pros and cons of the different models. But they are fundamentally different.

Understanding something like the Views Programme as an attempt of democratic participation (I am not sure if you do, some others obviously do or at least think it should be) might be a perception which is not shared by the Lindens. I guess I will know more about that after I was in San Francisco.

On the other hand: Even to me - and I am much more capitalistic entrepreneur than some might assume *winks* - Second Life is more than just a service. It has developed into at least a society and maybe a virtual nation will evolve out of it - or maybe a number of nations. Or maybe thats the wrong word. If you have read "Diamond Age", you might have a faint idea of what I am talking about.

Currently this is a society with not much of s structure and not many laws - which are enforced in a very lame fashion. Maybe this will change at some point in the future. Linden Lab certainly is interested in instituting not only more mechanisms for gathering feedback but in more customer participation, too.

Your suggestions were fine ones. And I am sure Linden Lab will consider them. Hey, Phil is a regular reader of your weblog obviously! I can't say that of mine.

I just don't think the Second Views Programme is intended as leading to a represantative assembly. But Robin might prove me wrong. I can only second that. The Lindens are walking on rather shaky ground. This is truly new territory - not only because of the cutting edge technology - but the dichotomy between "society/ruling class" and "user base/company" is not an easy one to handle. I don't envy them their job. So far, they are handling it admirably well - given the problems that this mixing of paradigms has to cause.

Well, um, thank you. It's far better than being accused of the opposite.

Regarding your reply to Gabe's post (curse him for always being more eloquent and insightful than me! )

I have one major objection to your application process:

The motives of people who seek out positions of influence will be tainted by ambition and self-interest, and, perhaps, the desire to get something worth bragging about.

Never underestimate the motivation and ability of someone with too much time on their hands to fabricate a compelling case for why they should be considered for a position of influence.

I would rather have an advisory board of people hand picked based on being good at what they do... instead of picked on the basis of how convincing they can be.

(That's not over-thinking too much I hope? )

As a newish person, I can't honestly think of any practical way of choosing a new customer, or even what it would achieve. Even if there were some amongst us who where objective, had insights, experience, talent... how would they be found, let alone chosen? We simply haven't had time to make that sort of noise in the world, and there is such a lot of us.

Please don't say a competition, or apply like a job. In my experience, often the very people you're seeking, won't presume or desire to enter such a thing.

Nor would they be representative. Lewis and I joined in the same month - clearly we have diametrically opposed opinions - we wouldn't represent each other in any way (on that we would agree). We're not some homogenous blob of common experience and opinion.

In any case, I for one don't feel the need to be represented. I'm happy enough with the idea, that some clever, knowledgable people are going. I don't really see the value in someone arriving with a list of complaints, tackling policy issues, nor do I think 'the everyday average little avatar struggling through lag to get noticed' has much to offer in this scenario.

I'm hoping this is about broader things. I'm glad people are going with the background, the knowledge, and the demonstrated ability to make things happen to look at future developments/directions.

I'm happy to give the old-timers their props, not just in this case, but any time. I choose to believe they are what they are, through talent, hardwork, and the foresight to be early adopters. Many of them seem to have been early adopters because they were already successful or accomplished in the kind of disciplines that placed them in that unique position to recognise it's potential right from the start. They have relevant expertise and knowledge beyond SL. I don't spend an instant imagining my contributions and insight as a new person in any way matches that. I don't waste a thought on whether others have more than me, have opportunities I haven't earnt yet, have someone's ear and I don't.

FIC? Fucking Idiotic Crap dreamt up to make people feel better about there own inadequacies, to excuse their lack of accomplishment, and to spitefully deny others their achievements and talent.

Ok. Well, I guess if it's that important to you, that you would use an alt to monitor people from the fringes, so that you might have "ammo" for future use, so be it. Not that I am terribly convinced that you're not just making things up (your "I won't reveal" statement surely makes me wonder). I think you might want to consider who that type of behavior probably says the most about, if your claims are in fact legit.

I placed "ammo" in quotes above because I really think the fact that there are residents who are friends with, and interact with Lindens, is not big deal. Am I one? No. In fact, they probably don't care for me or my style a whole hell of a lot. At SLCC this summer they'll probably shake my hand to be nice, and think, "Oh, it's that big-mouth psycho Nolan." But, that won't spur me towards abject cynicism about SL - if it did, I'd be out that door so fast they wouldn't see me moving.

I realized a long time ago, that in life, who you know can be important. That's not wrong or right, it's life, and it's up to the individual to decide whether or not it's more important to isolate one's self, and to point while hollering, "sellouts!", or to join in the race.

In the end, it's all about choosing one's course, based upon individual principles and perception. While choosing the route of "I won't play the game" may seem noble - one doesn't win a door-prize by staying at home.

No, and I guess that might be a problem. But as I said, they could still choose their known entities, but this way they would at least have a SHOT at someone else, and it would also handily fill up that supposedly "random" spot they were going to have, without being nearly as random.

coco

Hi again... hehe... I was surprised to see almost 100 posts between our own two ;) ... and no one even bothered to comment on those ;)

True on all accounts. As a matter of fact, one interesting bit about "Linden communication" reflects what they say about Second Life itself:

Reporter: So, Mr Linden, what is Second Life about?
Linden employee: Uh... well, it's a virtual world we've created some time ago... it's built by residents.
Reporter: But what exactly is it about? Is it a software platform, a creative tool for artistic self-expression, a virtual economy, a 3D game, a 3D chat?
Linden: Uh. All of the above, I guess.
Reporter: You guess?
Linden: Well, it's their world. Their imagination. They can do whatever they want with it.
Reporter: So that's why they are all involved in cybersex and forum ranting?
Linden (shocked): Well, not all are doing that!!
Reporter: But most are. So is this a dating community?
Linden: No! I mean, it could be! But no, it's a virtual world. People do whatever they want to do here.
Reporter: And all they do is sex.
Linden: Well, 75% of them have created an object in the past 30 days... (ruffles notes)
Reporter: Of a sexual nature?
Linden: We don't track that information.
Reporter: But it could be?
Linden: Well, some do. But we also have Harvard here...
Reporter (smugly): Teaching exactly what?
Linden: Well, lots of things, really. People can use SL for any educational purposes.
Reporter: So does Harvard use your platform for virtual classrooms?
Linden (relieved): Yes, and they have very nice buildings and all.
Reporter: For teaching sex-related classes in cyberspace? (winks)
Linden (shocked again): Not at all! They're very serious about their work! It's very important to see that this is a platform for the 21st century...
Reporter (cutting short): So this is a platform after all? For doing what exactly?
Linden (confused): Well, for some it's a game, not a platform.
Reporter: And for others a chatroom?
Linden: Yes, that too...
Reporter: And a dating service?
Linden (in despair): No! (doubting) Well... perhaps that as well... but only for some... not for all... it's like the Internet, you see, people will use it as they like. We don't stop them.
Reporter (confident): So, how many users using your, uh, "product", see it as a "game", a "platform", a "virtual economy", a "chatroom", or a "dating service"?
Linden (babbling): Uh, we don't have any statistics on that. Really. We don't have a clue.
Reporter (beaming): Thank you very much for your time, Mr Linden. I'm quite sure our readers will now have a much clearer view about what Second Life truly is!

Ok, so they're not that bad in public, but you see what I mean :) I have real trouble explaining what Second Life is about, and pointing people (and companies...) to their website is usually even a worse idea. I prefer to hand out prepared information before, depending on the audience I'm targetting. I expect Lindens do the same ;)

In any case, it would be a good point to address at the Second Views meeting — how can communication be improved? :)

There are indeed alternative ways of doing that, and in my (limited) experience, simply electing people for a body to provide input on certain issues is not necessarily a good thing — when you're talking about the corporate world ;) Appointment by merit, experience, expertise and know-how, and similar things are usually much better in terms of productivity.

After all, you can go to Linden Lab's site and see the composition of their own Advisory Board. Obviously all the people there were invited, and not somehow "elected" from a group of uh "game gurus" or something silly like that. They were selected by LL's board as being very bright people that would advise LL very well, based on their personal and professional experience, and invited personally to be part of their Advisory Board. It would be ridiculous to assume any other way of selecting them.

So, viewing Second Life as a platform, and residents as users of that platform, it makes no sense to me that a "Resident Advisory Board" would not follow the very same procedures — appointment by LL based on merit, personal qualities, and a good standing with both LL and a large majority of residents. I would be rather shocked if it would be done in any other way. And there is no questioning the criteria for selection. Flipper already explained them very well earlier in this thread (another post which was mostly ignored).

(One could only argue that Second Life is a world and that in a world, democracy should become the norm — while currently it's libertarianism, but that's fine — and under demcoracy, the representatives are supposedly elected. But I think that LL has dropped the "it's a country" marketing bit a while ago)

No, what I was aiming at was the procedures of gathering input. RL Advisory Boards rarely work in a vacuum. When Mitch Kapor sits on the LL Advisory Board and tells "Philip, users of Mozilla would like to know how they can help to develop your Gecko-based uBrowser further..." I'm pretty sure Mitch has discussed that thoroughly with the Mozilla community, and knows what he's talking about :) So, while Mitch was not "elected" to be a member of the LL Advisory Board, he certainly consults with the Mozilla community regularly (as well as many others he's involved with), and presents his views as an expert based on the input he received. This was the model I was suggesting/proposing/thinking about for the Resident Advisory Board.

(Oh, and off the record, Prok labels me as a hypocrytical left-winger, while the left-wingers accuse me of being an extreme-right fascist. A journalist told me that this is exactly what it means when you're in the neutral middle: you get targeted by both extremes ;) So I guess that's fine.)

Well, why not? Just because it's not a "good thing" for SL, do you think? I would rather defend the contrary; I'm all for having residents advising the Lindens on a regular basis :) And I also think it's time to do that formally.

I totally agree with you, and I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression!

The issue here is not if a "democratic" process is "better" or not for a company (it isn't, but that's another story, as you so well put). The issue is only how to create structures and procedures on regularly gathering customer input. The usual model relies often on two pillars: a Partner programme, and a User Group. None are "democratic" or even attempt to pass for being democratic. The first kind — the Partner programme — is really a matter of companies wishing to work with LL to form close ties with them (both work towards the same goals — making money using SL as a platform). The User Groups usually are spontaneously created from the community of users, but there is hardly a "democratic process" to generate them. No, they usually self-appoint themselves, and present their input to the company owners, who feel this channel to be very encouraging to manage an organised source of user input (as opposed to chaotic input — forums, emails, reading blogs...).

I would be very surprised if it were. Robin's was quite adamant in telling that there would be no "resident government" in SL. It doesn't make any sense to me. A vast majority of users of SL do not view SL as a "country", and those would be seriously pissed off if LL embraced a "role-playing" relationship with their user base, instead of adopting a corporate stance. Also, it would ruin LL's very good standing and solid reputation with the likes of Harvard, Coca-Cola, or Microsoft :) I can imagine how "ruling a company as a democracy" could have the big left-wing activists in SL voting down a proposal of LL to open up advertisement channels on the Welcome Area for Microsoft. It's simply unmanageable; you can't run a company having the users vote on what they think it's best for them (as opposed to what is really best for them).

Nevertheless, good communication with a large user base is a prerequirite to corporate success. But "communication" should not be confused with "voting", something that has been very often been mixed up in these forums (and elsewhere). A good example: the Feature Voting site is mostly misunderstood by the many that yell that it's "undemocratic" and "useless". It has a very important purpose: providing feedback and ordering priorities. And for a company that is all they need.

I still quote Philip on the "virtual country", since I like the concept, but one has to learn and go ahead with the times ;)

I'm looking forward to reading it on SLOG ;)

I haven't, but there are two "Second Lives" here. One is Second Life, the software product, created by a software development company, and subject to corporate organisation. I imagine that when Robin talks about "design & policy" she's talking about "SL The Product".

The other is "Second Life the community of users who uses the product". This actually happens on several other social tools; Orkut and Friendster come to mind, but even things like eBay are not too far off from that. I totally agree that it develops naturally, if the tool is appropriate for that development. And I'm quite sure that the Wikipedia of 2050 will listen Second Life as "an early 21st-century social tool for creating online communities".

Thus the dual nature of Linden Lab itself. In their relationship with customers, they have the usual "tech support team" (Liaisons). But they also recognised, very early on, the need to address Second Life's social use, and thus the importance of the Community Team. Business analysts looking at Linden Lab would find that strange, since usually a company is not really interested in supporting the social use of their tools. But in Second Life, that role is also crucial, and I'm always very glad that they have addressed this very early on.

Of course both "roles" of Second Life meet. Thus the problem when a group of technological users wish better scripting tools (because they wish to deploy applications with Second Life) and a group of social users want better IM facilities (because they want to have their community/society working better), and LL has to decide where to employ their limited resources, and allocate them accordingly. I have high hopes that the Second Views programme will help them in this process.

They were always open to more customer participation, in both areas — both in developing the product further, and in expanding the communities within. All that is good :)

As to better "enforcement of the rules"... well... that would make a completely new thread and I'll skip that for now ;)

No, but I hope it leads to a User Group.

I truly second you on all the above :)

I can imagine that, no matter what SL's future is going to be, they'll become a case study of their own because of the way they have so successfully handled that issue.

Many would disagree, and do that on a regular basis. But I can't understand how they don't see the many negative examples of "similar" models. While as a Mac user I'm totally impaired to participate in 90% of the 3D worlds out there, I have least lurked on their forums, blogs, "official" and "not so official" newspapers, searched through their help systems, trying to understand how their communities work. And what shocked me was the appalling nature of all these "community-related" information. Although many are several sizes larger than SL, I look at what people are doing there... and it's worse than joining a Britney Spears fan club :) They're almost empty of meaning, of interesting thought, or any deeper understanding. Sure, most people in SL disagree with each other — but more often than not, they disagree on serious issues.

On a competitor's "official journal", the most clever article is written by someone talking about the fashion for summer 2006 — someone who claims to be a tarot card reader and a spiritual counsellour. On SL's site, we have a cover story on BusinessWeek. That's the amount of difference we have between SL and "elsewhere".

I mean, even 80% of the posters here write English correctly. How many similar forums on "competing" products can claim the same? :) (I've read many of them)

TSO's only interesting discussions have always come from two sources — the Herald, and Prokofy Neva's earlier incarnation :) Now these two are in SL. Sure, we might disagree with either "institution", but the point is, SL is totally different. Perhaps we're too serious about this "game" after all. It's early to say if "being serious" about it is a good thing or not... but at the very least, it's undeniable that it's different.

So, when I return to "normalcy" (I mean after browsing around the "other" blogospheres, and returning to SL's own), and I see how so many people, coming from other platforms, start to apply their fears and obsessions to SL ("I was in [insert virtual world here] and saw exactly the same happening... SL is doomed, like [that other company] was... heed my words... I have seen it all happening before..."). The FIC, for instance, have emerged from the notion that some users are favoured by the "gamemasters", something that undoubtely happens on other "games" as well.

But around here, we're talking about a corporation and its user base :) This is so very hard to understand for so many. I guess I'm part of the lucky crowd; never being interested in MMORPGs or MMOGs or any of those games, I have no prejudices coming from the "gamer culture" (not even from the "forum culture", a game of its own). So I'm part of the crows that takes SL of what it is, and not what it looks like it is ;)

OMG... Gwyneth, this gives me food for thought for the rest of Saturday. And it already made me smile a lot.

I guess I won't find the time to answer on it in detail (have to push my own weblog a bit today; no, it is not SL limited), but I am sure I will reuse and refer to many of your statements in the future.

Just one little hint out of the many ideas that came and went while reading you post: Please try and find a copy of "Diamond Age". It is also by Stephenson but much more interesting than "Snowcrash" in many ways. The (political) world it describes is a very interesting model of interconnected and interweaved societies that coexist in a basically chaotic world. Some of them with strict rules, some of them nearly anarchic. Interesting food for thought - besides the story. I already see some similarities with sub-cultures in SL. And I expect even more similarities with better group tools and the growing importance of non-mailand continents.

But the sun if finally coming up outside after a gray and cold morning. My blog might have to wait, while my son and my dog will get a little bit of "me".

Good lord ! that would be a bloody Snorefest.. we might see the secret handshake though

I just wanted to point out that with her last post, Gywneth has used up all of the hard drive space on the entire Intarweb.

Which would not be a bad finish for the thread at all

This part struck me as interesting, I observe this difference all the time, because I was never a gamer. Some of the views or concerns some have, don't even occur to me, and I don't understand where they're coming from, until I imagine it from a gamer's perspective (as best I can). Like the notion of buying L$ being cheating somehow.

I came to SL after googling the word 'avatar'. I had never played a game, wasn't about to start, but a few years before I'd read something about avatars, and I had just got an internet connection, and I thought, I wonder what's happening with that avatar stuff. I skipped past all the gamey things... SL stood out. When I entered, I had no notions of what it would be like, what it was, or what is should be. I wasn't comparing it to anything.

So I find it easy to accept the notion of SL as a 'platform thingy'. I don't have any more expectation of LL than I would another company who's service I use. SL is a tool for me, a vehicle.

I guess that's why I don't really see the need for everyone to have a chance at being chosen, or any desire for everyone to be on some sort of equal footing generally. It doesn't have to be 'winnable' by all.

I found your whole post insightful. I'm still digesting most of it.