Experimenting with the SL community - should this be allowed?

Should members of the community be allowed to fail?

Should they be allowed to post messages which are within the bounds of rules but yet are clearly trying to manipulate and experiment with the culture and community of SecondLife?

For example:

I recently posted a message on SLBoutique .. I had a number of motivations

1. First and foremost, I believe creativity and ideas are sparked from a bit of chaos. Like evolution occurs from genetic defects, new ideas require a certain degree of random thought.

2. I honestly believe that content gateways are developing influence over SL. For example, Flipper has default sort set to newest item first. So, right now, if you want to be on top of the sort list all the time you should come out with new items. Since this is hard, it's best to do new, cheap items. So, in this way, he's influencing SL content builders to make new, cheap items quickly.

3. I have experienced surges in sales everytime a SLBoutique thread popped up on SL. I was curious if I could continue to create the same effect. I have, and I find that quite fascinating. That even a silly little thread by me can have such a big impact, and the bigger the impact the more people decide to troll me. Interestingly, negative things from me don't necessarily cause bad press because nobody pays attention to me anyways. They do, however, pay attention to those who rise to its defense.

BTW, currently, for various reasons, I prefer SLBoutique over SLExchange. I don't really want to get into it, but I do, and I find it very interesting that I can effect my preference on the community.

4. One effect, that didn't work out at all, was that I was hoping more people would agree with me that SLB is effecting a certain degree of influence. One of the things I predict will happen is that the Lindens at some point will create their own "SLBoutique" and integrate it in game. Hopefully by illuminating to the community how they are ceding a certain degree of control over their virtual world to SLB, this might percolate up into Linden world. Other things I have mentioned have done so.

*chortle* You mean, "should I be allowed to post the inane crap I do?" Sure. Why not? I think you tend to overestimate the ability of any one individual to manipulate public opinion. Prokofy was a perfect example of someone who very deliberately tried to do that, and expended a great deal of effort at it. Look where it got him. He thought he was being clever with his agenda of attempting to marginalize and discredit established players and successful businesses. A few people bought into his propoganda but generally all he succeeded in doing was discrediting and marginalizing himself. People here aren't stupid. Most are pretty good at knowing bullshit when they smell it. What you call "manipulating and experimenting with the culture" most people just call trolling. Excessive trolling was why Prokofy was banned from the forums.

Prokofy has made a very extreme impact on the culture.

The concept of the FIC has become firmly rooted in our collective psyche.

The only problem was that I'm pretty sure he didn't do it on purpose.

The question becomes then, how can you consciously reproduce those sorts of accidents.

Very true.

~Ulrika~

I disagree, Ulrika.

I have generated clear sales from people trolling content that I sell.

Clearly, an impact is possible.

I don't think the original poster goes far enough. I think he should be allowed to wire biometric feedback into his polls and maybe pin our eyes open as in A Clockwork Orange so that we are forced to read his polls. I think that administering nauseasting drugs should be redundant.

I experiement on him but I have permission as it came with my FIC kit.

Schroedinger's Cat


http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/ugModules/Economics/ECON322/

Oh he most definitely did it on purpose, and he's still at it over at the Herald and in the comments sections of all the LL blogs. It has become part of the collective psyche, but mostly as satire... more a way to ridicule the envious or paranoid than to point out nefarious power-mad schemes. That's the part that wasn't on purpose. He underestimated the collective intelligence of the population. I say if you want to try to follow in his footsteps as a manipulator of public opinion, have at it. The only thing you're truly likely to affect is your own reputation, and not in a good way... especially if you always follow it up with a "hey, look how clever I'm being!" post. *laugh*

Maybe the surges in sales have more to do with people learning the history and making more informed choices regarding where they choose to spend or not spend their L$. Coupled with some help from one of the business partners who seems to feel the need to revise the facts which could also have an effect on sales.

Oh, don't worry, I've got a great reputation and I'm well aware that this particular ALT has to use a somewhat more indirect approach. But your concern is appropiately noted.

Personally, though, I'd save your concern for people who base their reputations on copyright infringement, unable to do anything but trace other people's work and ideas.

Please, please, please, tell me that wasn't a snipe at Chip as it reads like one.

Otherwise, I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee. Or at least make fun of you more.

Note to conspiracy theorists: I might have met Chip in-game once and have no other connection (except as a fellow member of the RL fez-wearing, little-car driving, philanthropic cult of people who wish they were Arabs).

Prokofy coined the term. The veracity of the reaction did more to embed it into the culture.

I'm confused.

Why would we want to emulate behavior of a banned poster?

Good lord no! I am simply saying that perhaps reputation wise, we need to worry about people who are breaking real rules and committing real crimes versus those who are merely interested in creating a creative if somewhat random environment.

Thanks for the clarification, Blaze, as I didn't *want* to have to learn how to strike down upon thee

that'd be a bummer, end all the fun!

*straightens fez*

I think the law of human nature that most applies is that things that get repeated often enough become truth, no matter how untrue they actually are. People will latch on to the concept. That only works if it's in a venue where it isn't challenged and the veracity of the claims aren't examined... like Fox News.

The following sentiment has been expressed more than once, "I hate to say it but the forums have gotten boring.". I doubt that many would be willing to acknowledge it here, but the *gets popcorn* segment of the population may appreciate the circulatory effects of your efforts.

Yeah, god forbid we discuss things civilly and address important issues without flamefests.

How about those who wish to play a game go make a game in world that's voluntary, and stop bugging us that want to accomplish discussion? You have a right to play a game, and we have a right not to.

And there are other forums for SL.

I agree with this sentiment. However, I have a hard time lumping in 'radical ideas' with flamefests.

I think a big problem is that we all bring to the table an agenda, no matter who we are. It's hard wired in us all to project our own philosophy upon others.

And some of us, of course, project the philosophy of live and let live .. but that is a philosophy in itself as well.

My point being here is that even though you might be addressing an issue that you think is 'civil', in fact to someone else it might be a flamefest simply because the issue really is an implicit (or perhaps explicit) soap box for your own particular beliefs.

For example, someone might think it's a very civil thing to discuss the privacy rights of Name2Key .. and then everyone else completely freaks out because he's impugning on the rights of commerce.

I think in the end, we all have to assume that civil discourse really is logical discourse. Avoiding straw men and ad hominem.

Trying to label certain ideas and concepts as 'flamefests' simply because they might 'freak you out' is an impossible limb to go out on.

I think it's pretty clear. Reproducing "accidents" by banned forum members that resulted in tons of flame fests seems to me like another cruising toward flame fests. Similar stimulus, similar response.

Your straw man is lumping your "emulation" game in with the concept of "radical ideas" which can be addressed without the intention of ... well, pissing off a bunch of people by calling them greedy elite that look to keep the collective down. No, blaze, those two aren't in the same category.

Additionally, continuing on this topic - there were times when the subject of content producers and the economy were discussed civilly, but it was always a mindset of "the FIC are out to screw us" that ultimately derailed these civil discussions. There is a way to bring up radical ideas civilly, and then there is the totally different matter of emulating banned troll behavior.

I don't think that poor psycho has any control whatever over themselves.

But, to the point of this thread, Blaze -- manipulation of groups is not new. I have yet to meet someone interested in it that wasn't evil. Sorry, you just gave yourself away. I must now cease all interaction with you, as I refuse to support evil.

I'd say it's been real, but it hasn't. Pun intended, on all levels. (wry grin)

You're claiming that his impact on the community was his constant ad hominem? That's a possibility, though not one I will attempt to reproduce. Not only beacause it's a step too far for me, but also because I really have no desire to be banned.



Heh, well, I don't think I ever said that. However, I kinda get your jist .. at what point is it discussing culture and what point is it a hate crime? It's an interesting question that academics often suffer under.

For example, it's obvious genetics plays a huge role in our lives. Doctors know, for example, that certain races are predisposed towards certain diseases and openly (and safely) discuss this all the time. However, when they try to discuss such things as genetics and crime or genetics and intelligence .. well, then it becomes hate crime.

I think we see a similar problem here. If I want to address the culture of second life, unless I stear clear of certain subjects, I could easily be accused of simply performing another hate crime.

personally, I think the key is to address people who chose to have a particular mindset. For example, addressing all 'beta' members would be a hate crime, however addressing all people who think that SL residents should have a can do attitude should be reasonably fair game.



Yeah, I suppose you could be delicate. However, stating controversial ideas directly is a great way to get a debate going.

Sorry to be boring and go back to the topic, but I found blazes original post very interesting. In the above quote he is actually communicating observed facts about cause and effect on SL commerce. I for one find this very interesting and highly relevant to any vendor or potential vendor.

How strange it is that such a factual posting generated so little interest in its actual content.
The idea of experimenting with various indirect sales tactics, in this neat enclosed little world, and at zero cost, seems to me a fascinating opportunity, and I for one thank Blaze for sharing his experience.
If this thread had actually explored this "what-affects-what" issue, it could have been quite constructive. I'm a bit busy atm, otherwise I might have had something to say on it myself.

Has any one else either deliberately or accidentally discovered things influencing their sales more than they might have expected ? Anyone else who is willing to tell us, of course.....