Wristwatches for extras: the next SL economy?

I didn't post the cartoon to be sarcastic, I was posting the cartoon because that's all the comment I made, the one you went off about anonymity over, was just a joke. If you go dancing in a hot chick AV that you're not "entitled to" because you're short and overweight, or you're going dancing in a hot surfer-hunk body instead of the 200 lb geek you "really" are, nobody's going to chase you down and "out" you because you're really a dog. Even if you're really a dog.

What the hell did you THINK I was talking about? Is "dancing" some code word for "hooking your body" now?
I'm kind of boggled by this. I mean, you know that in real life I can buy a shirt and dye it a different color, or let it out so it's loose instead of tight, or just buy one that's the wrong size and keep wearing it out of sheer bloody-mindedness. That's all you can do with "mod" clothes, and it's not even as effective as that because just wearing it in a different light can give it a 'sickly tint'... because SL's lighting model is so messed up nobody's going to know whether that's what it was supposed to look like or not. I honestly can't imagine what I could do with one copy of an outfit that would "hurt your reputation". Certainly not enough that you need to worry about needing anonymity to get away from the horror of someone tinting.

No, and I wouldn't expect any. Are there actually cases of people buying clothes and wearing them funny to degrade the competition... cases SO bad someone wanted to change their name to get away from it?

Thank you, that's nicely put.

I'm taking that statement as a goal that SL would be building towards.



Who wants slaves? They just want people who'll go to and try out new places without needing to have them heavily marketed, in exchange for a bit of extra money.

Since you seem to be confused, Argent, and "Lost" is a repeat, allow me to recap. We'll start with Yumi Murakami's comment:

While I didn't see this as having anything to do with "No Mod" clothing, apparently you did. So you quoted it and then replied with the following quasi-rant {emphasis mine}:

You didn't stop there. After both Yumi and Ben made good comments, you continue:

Certainly doesn't sound to me like "artistic integrity" is being used politely. Personally, I'd buy "Mod" items if that was important to me. But I'd also not disparage those who create "No Mod" content; they have the right to do as they see fit and not be on the receiving end of petty sarcasm. The market can do all the talking afaic.

Need more sarcasm and insult, here we go:

When I see all caps as used here and words like "magic ingredient", I most definitely get a sense of the tone being expressed. It's not evidence to me of your being congenial.

Now just prior to those last comments you added this (part of the real original topic):

I took this to mean that the person behind the avatar is unknown and they can be whoever or whatever they want to be and do or say anything without concern that anyone will ever discern their identity. Correct me if I'm mistaken. I then responded to both this comment - which I consider to be only partially correct - and the off-topic comments. First paragraph:

I'm responding to the concept of internet anonymity that you're reinforcing here because it indicates to me that this belief would lead someone who would say this to not consider other issues regarding Reputation. I'm saying that if people aren't 100% anonymous all the time (and they aren't), they need to consider issues of non-anonymity and, by extension, their Reputation (both in SL and beyond). This relates directly to your off-topic rant on "No Mod" content. Here's the second paragraph on that:

So actually, you needlessly split the topic and all I did was attempt to partially rejoin it.

Now, your response to my pointing out that being on the internet was no guarantee of anonymity was this:

Please explain to me how that isn't a sarcastic reply.

Continuing with your response, you then demonstrated you didn't follow my logic by virtue of this comment:

While I grant you probably weren't confused (because I think you knew you were disparaging content creators who attempted to have some control over their work), I've already shown how the two are related. I won't bother with the last portion of your comment equating simple tint control with creating new copycat content.

Now, finally, on to your latest response:


I didn't say you posted the cartoon to be sarcastic. I said "and, btw, there was no need to post a link to emphasize your sarcasm, we remembered just like you asked us to". The comment is sarcastic. The link to the cartoon is, as far as I'm concerned, either emphasis for the sarcasm or a demonstration of your l33t search skills or maybe a demonstration of the wondrous trivia locked inside your mind (or something like that) - at least these are the options I came up with.

Which part is the joke? The cartoon? Or your comment? Cartoons in "The New Yorker" aren't usually lacking in deeper meaning (which would of course explain it's importance in the history of the internet). Either way it doesn't matter. I'm pointing at the very real belief many people have that their actions online will not become connected to their real life identities; a mistaken belief in my opinion. And I'm using that only to respond to your other comments on "No Mod" - "the one you went off about".

Yes. I know. However, there are limits. For example, IRL if you bought a tight-fitting article, you could only take it out so much; there's rarely much excess material. You'll not find people IRL casually letting out their straight-leg jeans to get superwide bells; if they added material (a likely necessity) the modification would be obvious - not so in SL. No one would know that the item had been modified. And with regard to tinting, there may be times when the texture has details that are rendered invisible when a range of tints are applied; thus degrading the overall design (and sometimes unbeknownst to the person modding the item who may be at operating at low graphics settings). Again, while this could be done with a real shirt, the addition of a dye would in some cases cause the two colors to become darker (when mixing RGB video color, the more that's mixed the more "White" the result; whereas IRL mixing colors adds in grey until it goes to "Black". Additionally, there's rarely an issue of people IRL operating on widely different graphics settings; even with varying levels of visual acuity, people have ways to manually compensate.

"Wearing" clothes funny detracts from the wearer, not the article.