I guess Social Democratic is a code word for Totalitarianism

Brilliant post, Shadow

You have no say in how we run our group unless you join it. I don't care to debate policy with someone who doesn't have a stake in what we're doing. If you want your opinions to matter about policy we're making then join but don't think you should be able to debate what we are doing when you aren't a member.

Nor answer questions put to you.



It was also to be an experiment. A learning experience. I think one of the lessons they've probably learned all too well is that many people that dont like the game they play will try very hard to stop them playing it too.

I have my own opinions on the matter, but hell, I would never presume to try and tell them what they can or cant do with their Second Lives just as long as they don't try to affect mine. I guess thats what I just don't get... why is this SO different from any other group project in SL that people dont think they have a right to do it at all, or want to tell them how it should or shouldnt be done ?

If these people have such an interest in how things are run, then why not join the project and earn the right to have a say? I'm pretty sure they aren't expecting or even wanting perfect harmony forever. It seems there are already a number of dissenters in the ranks

I want a list of all the groups you're in and would like all the im's of those groups sent to me from now on ...ok....no its not because I'm not in those groups .

Thank you Kris. Well stated!

Uh.. Buddy.. Get a grip.. and a memory...or just use the back button and search features on the forums.

Numerous posts have described the "silencing".. including deleted posts, edited posts, and Ulrika withdrawing from public posting so that her "infamy" won't distract from the group... (actually probably the best PR move the group could make, in one sense).

As for "you"..... your association with the group makes it "you" in some sense. Just as Toy left because she didn't agree with what was happening it it, and by doing so her actions "spoke" of her disatisfaction with the group, your continued association with it speaks of your approval of the group's goals, actions and policies.

Does it? I don't think I've heard any government or political party anywhere speak with a unilateral voice on anything!

No one was silenced period. There have been miscommunications and the like but that is all.

As for my staying with the group its because I want to see how it all works. As for our goals, actions, and policies...they arent set in stone and have been evolving the whole time.

Despite the condescension in the post.. here is one glaring problem with the above....

Consider the Stalin purges of the 50s.. the "internal struggles" of Rwanda..... and a few notable others for comparison.

Obviously these comparisons are drawn for effect... but "Staying" on one's own side of the fence is not the solution when the group's problems spill out into he public forums.

As much as I might like to engage in policy discussions there... and believe it or not, that is something attractive to me from a purely intellectual perspective.... I won't as I am not a member of the group. Still as soon as they "come outside", they are fair game... for any number of reasons... and "just picking on them" is not my motivation.

Tell you what... keep your condescension to yourself and I will keep postiing publicly as I choose. How's that for a deal?

No need for saws. I think your post sums it up. I know I have been a vocal opponent when it spills into the main forums for weeks and months, but some folks went overboard here. I also think Malachi realized what he was doing when he made this post. Leave 'em alone in their own forum. Unless you have something positive to say you really have no business saying anything in a group's forum. I wouldn't dream of it and I'm sure it's known how passionate I can be.

I never said it was a "united" (not unilateral) voice...

Still, people derive their perceptions of others at least partially due to observing the association of individuals with certain groups or other people. If you hang around with thugs, you may agree with the goals and actions of such goes teh reasoning - not perfect, but well documented in academic literature as a process/method many people use in evaluating others and choosing to identify with them or not.

The land this group is using is LL land it is given to them as a LL sponsored project. Which to me means its a public project. As a member of SL I happen to think I have a right to voice my opinion on the project. None of this is meant in a negative way.

Sorry CAtherine.. They weren't "given" the land.. It's a requirement that they use personal "tier" to support the project... The sim WAS reserved for their use.. but they were not "given" it.

The group is paying the tier fees, it is not a sponsored project.

Decent advice Korg, I'll admit that. Unfortunatly, due to the nature of the project, and the fact that we really *do* want people to understand what we are doing, it is understandable that we are going to try and squelch untruths where we can. I can think of no group that would do differently.

My mistake. Thanks for the heads up Korg

Why are the internal workings and disputes of this particular group everyone's business? How many group projects involving diverse and opinionated people are free of strife? My guess would be close to none. It really annoys me to see the constant hammering away at this particular project by people who have no vested interest other than a love of giving them a hard time. If you want to have a voice in how they run their affairs, join their group... otherwise you're really just harping about things that aren't any of your concern. That's my personal opinion anyway. Your mileage may vary.

First off, excellent post Shadow!

On this one statement I wish to say that we will of course present our events on the calendar and such. We are supposed to be about SL after all, so it stand to reason we will want to do things for the community. But we understand where and how to place event posts, classified etc. Yes, once or twice a post has been made directly by a member of our group to the general forums. We have since learned that while other groups can get away with it, we cannot. And that is fine. It is after all policy of LL not to advertise your things in the General forum. But not a regular here can tell me that it is applied across the board.

The vast majority of threads about our project (and some were other threads where it got mentioned somewhere half way between start to finish) were started by non-members of our project. Such as the one we are in now. We absolutly cannot be faulted for defending ourselves when another person in SL outside our project takes it upon themselves to mention us in the general forum. I will draw the line there. Because I believe all of us in SL have a right to defend ourselves.

Chip I refer you to this which is part of some Neualtenburg Projekt members public signatures:

The Neualtenburg Projekt - "...create an experimental community of artistic, ambitious, talented individuals who want to explore the limits of architecture, culture, and politics in Second Life" - Website Group Forums

Seems to me they wish to be known, correct me if I am wrong in this assumption.

You more than implied that anyone in the group was 'united' in their agreement with the group...

'your association with the group makes it "you" in some sense//your continued association with it speaks of your approval of the group's goals, actions and policies'

Btw, Korg, if you're gonna bring it down to picking on my choice of words there, perhaps you could educate me as to why a word meaning (according to my dictionary, anyway) 'emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject' or 'having only one side' is wrong to describe a group 'speaking with a single voice'? Thanks.



Well, that certainly comes across better than simply saying 'you're in their group therefore you must agree'. But I still disagree. Not with what you're saying... I recognise that for the most part people are that short sighted and narrow minded... but personally, I don't judge a person by their associations if I can help it. I try to judge them as individuals. Admittedly, there IS a bit of a difference between your metaphorical thugs and people who have an interest in playing government.

Okay, guys, seriously, this is pretty rediculous. First off, as has been stated by several people with more eloquence- ITS OUR GODDAMNED BUSINESS!

Secondly, it's not as if this goverment is inescapable. Members can leave when they want if they don't like the group.

Thirdly, another option with the government is- if we don't like it, we can CHANGE IT! We're setting up our government right now, and all of our members have a say in it. I've already gotten a change in the constitution- and I just joined Neaultenburg a few days ago. How can you POSSIBLY say that Neaultenburg is totalitarian?

Oh, and Korg, comparing Ulrika to Hitler and Mussolini? She deleted a post! She didn't have six million people executed!

thats pretty heavy handed there folks

Interesting .... especially coming from someone who so recently posted the following in the group's forum:

HowTo Handle Projekt PR Issues - Forums & In World

I can think of many groups who do things differently - but that doesn't make them or your group "right". It does open your group up for massive scrutiny - especially as the leadership seems bent on saying one thing and doing something else publicly - and in a very deliberate manner - especially when the two appear to be at such extreme odds.

I am at the point where I believe ZERO of what is being said publicly by group leaders... I have been forced by actions and statements to question the goals, causes and motivations of most of the group's forum posters because they - as a group - come across so defensive, so argumentative, and so self-righteous. Having saved the intial proposal and the SDF website statements, I routinely compare the forum actions/statements against those in those two documents and note the growing rift between them. Of course, that's just an opinion and assessment on my part - but it's an honest statement of where I am with respect to your group.

Korg,



First off I wasn't attacking you I was making a generalised commentary.

In one respect I tend to agree with some of what you said about the history of politics with in the organizations that you mentioned.

Unfortunately by my stamtement its a proven winner. How? you might say the end of 40 years cold war in Europe may be one answer and the total crumble of the Communist agenda another.

But if you would back up and reread what I said I simply am stating that as long as the laundry isnt public we have no rights to mess with it. When it involves us as a whole then by all means jump on it with freshly sharpened Golf shoes. At no point did I say not post or express your thoughts and feelings.

You have to look at the big Picture Korg and from your post you have a firm grasp in that concept but in this senerio you missed one key factor. Ulrika didnt post that on a public forum it was brought out of their forums to create discention and it did.

Please don't misconstrue what I am saying as a change on my stance that I detest a Player Run government it doesn't. But at the same time each of us Group or Individual deserve the right to work within the confines of what we pay for.

As you mentioned earlier in correction to Catherine they are paying for the tier so in Essence NBerg is no different than Dark Wood or Spellbound each are groups formed to create something and they are paying for thier tier and rights to be on the land that they so choose.

All I am saying or asking is now that the "We are out to take over the WORLD" has been squashed time and again shouldn't we give them the same respect we as individuals on our own land deserve or expect?

I wont insult your inteligence Korg but I do think you totaly missed my point earlier. I hope this clears up the misunderstanding as my post was meant to foster cooperation not discention.

Shadow.

But do they wish to be badgered to death constantly by outsiders? I'm pretty sure that isn't what being public is about. Having a website and forums does not make you a target by default.

I'll ask again. Why shouldn't they be allowed to conduct their project/experiment the way they want, just like anyone else in Second Life? Why should they be forced to defend themselves every inch of the way?