I guess Social Democratic is a code word for Totalitarianism

How true! Quothing the Bible out of context, "The Truth Will Set You Free". Or, if you want the reverse saying, "Ignorance Is Bliss" I fully agree on understanding being a two-way street...

Then again, there is no need to be "wary" of a group of people setting up their own rules of behaviour and abide by them, in their own sim. First, they're isolated on a spot somewhere far away from everything and everyone, up in the snowy mountains where they are harmless. Secondly, being "wary" also means giving too much importance to them. The Neualtenburgers certainly don't "deserve" that much importance.



She'll have my vote, certainly! LOL

actually, i forgot to add, it's self evident. it's a priori knowledge. in fact your claim of familiarity with ayn rand's philosophies only demonstrates it

Personally I see you more associated with Nurse Ratchet.. a "respected member" more deserving to be ""under treatment" than some of the inmate-patients.

Dude, you're way too exciteable. Slow down when typing your insults.

Who said slowing down would help? I never passed typing class.

I'll take that as a compliment....now take your pill or its off to electro shock therapy with you.

You would.

I find it very condecending to say that I disagee with the other players in SL.... I am the majority.

SL is a service provided by LL. I did not see when signing up that some players may want to bring about self government. I have no problem with N'Burg but I will not be coerced into believing it is right for SL. Please play nice in N'Burg, I for one, no probably many, do not want it to be involved with what SL is.
So ,simply said, keep it in N'Burg give the majority the peace they deserve.

To you "SL is not about the amazing technology for creating stuff". However, from what I have seen from the landscape and economy within SL, it is apparent that others feel differently. There is a very powerful ethos associated with creation within SL that not only elevates it above " so many programs (several of them for free) to do 3D modelling". The building technology within SL is not task-based or linear considering the weight that the social structure bears on the extension of building within the *metaverse*.

That being said, your dynamic view of the social aspect of SL (which I happen to whole-heartedly agree with minus this aspect) is just a weeeeee bit debased by isolating "building" within such basic terms. I don't think anybody who can even spell l-i-g-h-t-w-a-v-e would disagree that there are good programs for creation outside of SL. However, there are also much better outlets for social experiments as well. Both are relevant within SL.

It's hard for me to read a static assumption like above without questioning its seperation from the rest of your SL interpretation (which I find incredibly interesting ). Maybe you could explain a little more in-depth in your 13th quote?

As I suspected, I missed your earlier point completely, and I do apologize for that. The way I had read it, it seemed that everybody was consipiring to limit other people's gaming experiences. But then again, this actually happens every day, as I wrote earlier. We are at the whim of clever people making suggestions to LL which they implement.

So, basically, your problem with LL is that they 'forgot' or 'omitted' to tell that residents were allowed to get together, form a group, organize themselves, and establish a framework for a long-term project based on a sim that won't depend on individual, but collective will?

You're certainly right - there is absolutely nothing in either the ToS, the Community Standards, or even the Knowledge Base stating that this could happen.

Then again, there isn't anything written that forbids the free association of residents to pursue common goals, either.

Neualtenburg is simply that - a self-organizing community. Ok, so we call it proudly "The Government of The City of Neualtenburg" and have cool-sounding titles like Burgermeister or Gildemeister. But the point is, that's just plain and simple role-playing for something as trivial as "people getting together and agreeing - or compromising - on a common groundwork of rules".

Ulrika's proposal could have been to create a hi-tech, science-fiction setting, and call the organization thereof "The Collectivity"; Kendra would certainly love to propose a steampunk world and call the organization "The British Empire". Silly as those names sound, they would be exactly the same thing - a groundwork of rules to organize a project, make it grow, and make it sustainable. If the G-word were omitted, I'm quite sure that everyone would have a laugh, find it silly, and chuckle to themselves, shaking their heads as they quietly ignored our ramblings. And we would certainly be as serious about those two alternate scenarios as we would be about Neualtenburg's G-word. The principles, you see, would be exactly the same: an attempt at self-organization instead of having a "totalitarian" group officer to advance a project.

So, bad choice on words. We used the G-word instead. And suddenly the debate turns to whether that is supposed to be "allowed" or not.

Well, frankly, as I stated on all previous posts - don't judge Neualtenburg by what you think it is, but by what we say it is. And what it certainly isn't.

In case of doubt, re-read both Robin's and Haney's posts on what they think about Neualtenburg. You'll see that they have been quite clear, fully respecting an overwhelming majority of people 'fearing' the G-word - while certainly allowing people to have fun with self-organization!

actually -- I'd call it "BrittaniaCorp™"

Thanks for both acknowledging that one of the major proponents was fueling the concern about world dominance, and for your efforts in trying to redress that issue.

That was all I was concerned about. Please enjoy Neualtenberg; I hope it prospers.

YAY!!!! we do agree I simply dont want N'Burg to be a expirement that will become SL wide. I have no problems with a group starting, whthin the confines of their land, to set rules and such.
Even though I do belong to many groups Im really not a group person. I do like to socialize at times but I generally limit it to the Welcome Area as a Mentor or Live Helper. I also try to teach a couple classes a week as a SL Instructor. The rest of the time I am usually alone building

Gwyn, simply put, you're brilliant.

Well pandastrong, my hat to you. When I wrote the paragraph above, I had to rewrite it three times, because the original words could be interpreted as being slightly insulting to the creative community in SL - and I feel that this thread has been "hot enough"

Unfortunately, you picked on one of the weakest points of the argumentation and even asked for clarification. Ouch. Now Kendra will certainly expel me from the Guild of Artisans. Now, seriously, I must apologize in advance, since I'm pretty confident that many will completely disagree with my words.

First and foremost, they are not "my" words. Can't recollect when exactly I've heard the reasoning behind it, but I must admit that I had a strong negative reaction myself when I read them (or did I hear them? I can't remember...). Since then, things have changed in my life, and I almost agree with them, but still, I'm not 100% sure of them myself.

/preamble off

According to some authors, the process of art creation needs the following "partners":

1. the artist (obviously)
   
2. the object of his/her creation (also pretty obvious)
   
3. an editor/publisher/gallery
   
4. the critics/academics
   
5. the public
   

This is one of the trickiest points, and the philosophy of art certainly doesn't agree with all of them, and many artists will probably not identify with some of those definitions.

Who defines art? Not the artist! (first polemic thought) - but the critics. They are the ones who judge "impartially" what art "is" and gives, if you wish, a "seal of approval". If the critics say "this is not art" - it isn't. It may be a hobby, a pastime, or even handicraft - but it's not art. Tough one. So I create a beautiful sculpture, sell it for billions, and the world praises me for my creative genius - but it's not art? The answer, unfortunately, is no.

Also as important is the public. If nobody sees/buys your art - it's not art. Again, it's "an academic exercise" if you're reviewed by the critics and put it on display on an art gallery. If nobody sees it or buys it, it's not art. Art is something the public experiences.

You need distribution of your art. In some cases, the role of editor/publisher and art critic overlap (and you may well argue if they are not one and the same in many cases). This, actually, is the major problem with "commercial art", ie. non-reviewed art putting into circulation. A good example is popular music - you may have your latest hit on the chart tops, bought all over the world, but no actual critics. The distributor "plays critic" in that case (very, very polemic). But anyway, if you don't have a vehicle to bring your creation to the public, you're not producing art.

I leave the two obvious examples - you need an artist, and he/she needs to produce an object of art. With those everyone agrees (even if some post-modernists may accept that the artist itself can be an object of art - again, highly debatable).

So, let's give two or three examples of "normal" art in circulation...

A theater piece: the dramaturgist writes a play; the theater puts it on stage because it thinks it has potential to attract people; the critics put in a good word in the newspapers; people buy tickets; an artist is born.

A book: the author writes a book and sends a manuscript for publication. The editor looks at it, finds it's ok, gives a few copies to critics to read. They give a thumbs up and the book is launched at an autograph session, where people eagerly buy the book. Again, we got art here.

Now things get tricky...

Someone is a pretty good writer, but doesn't find a publisher. Instead, he/she puts up a blog, writes his/her stuff online, and the site gets lots of visits of people wanting to read it. The distribution media, in this case, is the Internet. Where are the critics? Well, some would say: "the public, by voting/rating the author's text, is the critic".

Major flaw here. The public cannot be a critic of art. With this every art expert agrees - while certainly most of the public would disagree! But the art is not exactly "made" for the public. I would hesitate to say that art is made for its own purposes, critics recognize it, and tell the public to experience it. I say "hesitate" because I have seen wise people struggle with those thoughts and come to no conclusion.

Ok, now here we come to Second Life...

I deliberately avoided this issue, because certainly the appeal of Second Life is being able to be an artist, produce objects of art, get them appreciated by a knowing public, and eventually get some ratings (again, technically, while the "media" is certainly SL, there seems to be no "critics" here, and so, technically as well, there is no art being created - except for those events where you submit your "art" - say, the clothing contests, the photography contests, or the Burning Life festival - and a panel of peers judge it. In those cases, you'll certainly be an artist creating art!).

I truly believe that people using SL as their favourite medium for creative expression is exactly because they have an "audience" - and playing with Lightwave or something else, at your own home, is not "producing art" (likewise, you can write the next Pulitzer prize, or the next Nobel in Literature... but unless you submit it for publication, it is not art, no matter how good you write!!).

So the artist needs SL. And artists are fickle creatures; the creation process, except perhaps for the 20th/21st centuries, is hardly something you can put "pressure" upon. The artist needs space and an environment to feel at ease and be productive. Some can do it all the time; some not. Individually, each one has his/her own personal needs to "get in the mood" of productivity. Some may need so little that they may completely dismiss the matter. The point is, there are no "rules" here, everybody is an exception.

However, all artists, at some point in their lifes, will feel that "something stiffles their creativity". They may simply be depressed about their daily chores. A noise may distract them. They may have had a night's bad sleep. Or they may be worried that a gang of SL residents are slowly creeping up on him/her and impose rules on his/her creativity. When this happens, the art process stops - and this is very, very hard on the artist. He/she will react emotionally and not rationally - a very understandable concept, because there can't truly be "non-emotional" art.

So there. You see why I skipped these ideas from the original post? In RL, I'm no artist, I don't have any artistic skills whatsoever (except perhaps in writing, but that's besides the point), but, for one reason or another, I was often in touch with the artistic communities. Worse than that, in more recent times, I have been involved in "artistic industrialization", ie. getting a creative project under way, impose project management, deadlines, and proper financing. Even at very small scales (no, I'm no Hollywood producer!!! lol), this is something incredibly stressing for the artists. You put too much pressure on them, and their "artistic vein" simply blows out, and you have nothing to work with. But let them ramble along, and you won't get any results at the deadline.

Back to the thread... impose too many rules upon certain artists, and they will stop creating - and leave SL. We have many many excellent artists in SL - and almost all feel the "threat" when other players tell them what they should do. That's plain and simple to understand - if you are an artist (or at least have dealt with them). There is no logic behind it, just pure emotion.

Again, even if I suggested that in those cases you should get back to your own 3D graphical design package... I was not being honest. A true artist needs an audience, he/she can't work "for him/herself". It makes no sense, it will only become a hobby - and not art. An artist has an urge to create, and needs the audience. Well, SL is here for him/her. But to be creative in SL, he/she needs to have the proper environment. Change it too much, and there is no creative process.

Does this mean that "organized projects" like Neverland or, possibly, Neualtenburg, cannot exist at all? Fortunately, the fact that they do exist shows that not all artists are like that! Some rise to the challenge - like being limited on their choice of textures and/or available space - and become incredibly creative to overcome their limitations and put their personal touch despite the constraints. I call this "industrial artistry" but I don't mean it as a depreciative label, rather the contrary - it's much, much harder to be creative with so many hurdles to overcome.

So, back to my original thoughts: "SL is not about building". It isn't. It's about building for an audience.

Sure we agree

I seriously doubt that something like that could become possible, by starting from a lil' experiment. Neualtenburg is too small an experiment. What works for 40 people, doesn't necessarily "work" for 17,000. It's just wishful thinking. I expect that this ratio will be mantained in the future as well, ie. when SL grows, there will be probably a few more "little Neualtenburgs" around, but the vast majority of SL will certainly remain "away" from the experiment. It simply does not appeal to the majority...

Of course, I may think differently if one day the composition of the SL population changes But that's for another thread - "What kind of people get attracted to SL, anyway?" The answer is much, much more polemic, and I'm not brave enough to attempt a straight answer...

Pfffft not at all. Remember, for me, relations between people are "old news" People are predictable if you can understand how they think. That's all.

The challenge (as Pendari put it so well on one of the Neualtenburg Group threads) is watching how different people are in SL, compared to RL, and see what applies, and what doesn't. I certainly have lots of surprises every day, and SL is fascinating both because it emulates RL - and because it's so different as well. So many things that simply don't apply!

But then again, the mix of people we have around here is not really like what we have in RL... right?

Gwyneth, you are amazing. Thank you for this explanation. We are in total agreement and your qualification was extremely fun to read. Maybe we'll bump into each other in-world again and take this into the original terms of "creation" that I was speaking of, as opposed to the ontological nature of art (although you described it so eloquently, you bumped the conversation up a couple notches of where I was even going).

Talen,

He always plays the lame semantics game. By evoking Hitler, the Nazis, Stalin, Mao, etc.. he creates the negative association, but can hide behind "I'm just making examples". Any reasonable (read: non-Korg) person could read Pen's statement in context and know she was talking about a mark on someone's record. He made an incendiary statement to her and then hides behind it. He can slur someone and just say "I didn't call her that, I was just said her actions were like that". Ok. I didn't call them an asshole, I just said they are acting like one. Whatever. I think Pendari and Korg's reputations both speak for themselves.

in defense of korg's impecable philosophical mind in regards to human rights, law, and governance, in the off topics forum korg passionately supported the right to use unconventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations.

While there is some productive and thought-provoking conversation going on in this thread, I just wanted to remind everyone that the forums are not the proper place to air personal attacks against one another - please refrain from personally attacking someone you don't agree with in the forums.

If you must discuss further your personal grievances with another resident, please utilize the more appropriate methods, such as private messages on the forum or instant messages or chat inworld. Thanks.

Yep yep yep.. and you didn't just do what you accuse me of.. right? By speaking about me in public, you didn't "name" or "label" me, right?

You are about as supercilious as they come in your "defense" of others not needing such.

Try getting off your high horse sometime and see how the rest of the world lives you smug ***.

And you seem to passionately support puiblic displays of arrogance.... when they are your own or those who agree with you.

and at other times as well. don't forget!

korg and i agree on only a few things, i have to agree with him on this. those two posts were a rhetorical mess.