Are YOU a business?

I know you didn't repost it, Aimee! And knowing what I do about you, I didn't think you would!

I guess you just didn't think that bringing the whole thing up again in General would be taken in that light, but it was. By me, by Blaze, and by who knows what others. But as for me, I figured also that you were just irked by Blaze suggesting you were going to get business benefits from it. My criticism of the awards, had I chosen to voice it, would have been on a different basis, and my criticism in any case wasn't nearly big or important enough to even mention.

I'm able to see your motivations when you explain them to me, and that applies to the whole business about changing the forum rules, too. I can reasonably say that the way it appeared to me and others, and the real motivations you had for it, were two different things, now that you've gone to lengths to explain it. I never attribute really bad motivations to you, or unkindness, or any of that, beyond the occasional getting-pissed-off that we all fall into now and then. The forum rules changes you proposed, though, did come on the heels/in the middle of all that was going on, and had to be taken in that context.

We have had good discussion on this, and I appreciate that, too.

coco

By "taken to its extreme" I meant, if everybody started accusing everybody they faintly disagreed with of being bad to the community.

And I agree that there are people who fall into gray areas. In that case, though, I would advise adding new, specific rules to cover that sort of previously unanticipated situation, rather than someone finding themselves out on their kiester for something that was never stated as against the rules in the first place.

In practice, though, this sort of thinking is taken to its extreme vis-a-vis individuals. The fact that there has already been a public calling for my ouster, and even a written proposal for it presented for others to sign and forward to the mods, does tend to make me more sensitive to the dangers of this sort of thing. You speak of what is most likely - well, most likely is this will happen to me, first, along with maybe Blaze and a couple of others.

But it would not have taken me being at risk personally for me to be against this sort of thing. Ironically, the only reason I am now at risk for it was due to my trying to make sure it didn't happen to another individual in the first place. I don't want this to happen to anybody. The danger isn't that it will happen to many of us; the danger is it might happen to any of us.

This, coupled with the over-reaching new rule, and the fact that people are now getting up petitions against other players, makes this topic currently the most important one there is to me, so much so that other things I have worked for, like more support for entertainers, have gone by the wayside.

As for the philosophy that we are "the same people on the boards as we are on the game," I would submit that I am the same person at work as I am at home. It wouldn't follow that losing my job should cost me my home, as well.

The purposes of a workplace and the behavior expected there are different from the purposes of a home, or a neighborhood, or a civic association, or any number of other scenarios which we participate in as the very same person. The rules of behavior in each environment, and the punishment for breaking them, should not cross over into other environments.

I participate in both the forums and the game as the same person. In fact, I participate in ALL my games and game forums as the same person - Cocoanut! But I don't want to be punished for what I say here by losing my game, or intimidated from saying what I would like to say here out of fear of losing my game.

coco

That rule already exists, in black and white, in the TOS:



They have had discretion all along - they can terminate our service at any time, for any reason, at their whim and determination. We have all agreed to this as part of agreeing to the TOS.

Come to think of it, you're right, Cristiano!

coco

Yeeees Coco... Join us... feel the dark side flow through you!

But honestly, "people" are not doing this. One person tried this and everyone (except maybe one person) disagreed with that person for doing so (even those that like the person that suggested the petition). I agree you have a right to be upset with the person who tried this, but to claim that "people" are doing this seems to be a bit of an exageration. And that exageration can lead to others thinking there is more going on than just one person stating an opinion.

Much like how the "shunning incendent" got blown into more than what it actually was. Which was *one person* stating their opinion that they were going to be ignoring someone. In this case, some others decided to do the same thing, but that was an individual choice made by each person that did so. The original person did not ask for others to do the same. There was no mass cry for everyone to begin shunning someone. If anything, the person who stated their decision to ignore someone did *much* less than what the person who asked everyone to send in a petition against you did. But see where it got that person? No where.

Exageration can lead to issues seeming larger than they are. And can distort facts. I personally am fine with the current new policies. But then I'm one who does not seperate the forums from in-world so to me they make sense. And I know others who hate the new policies and think they are too strict. I'm fine with hearing arguments from either side of the issue. But exagerating things doesn't help either argument, and it can lead to misunderstandings, confusion, and even extreme fear where no extreme fear should exist. That is my opinion at least.

Exactly. That would be an extreme situation, not the most likely situation.




The problem with that approach is that the damage is done by the time the new rules are in place. An after-the-fact rule doesn't do anything to deal with the initial extreme situation that caused the need for the rule in the first place.



Odds are pretty good that if I were to lose my job, I'd lose my home soon afterwards To use your analogy though, it'd be more like living in an apartment. If you were getting into fistfights in the hallways and lounge area, the landlords likely would toss you out.

SL and the forums are not separate and independent environments - they are both owned and controlled by LL. They're well within their rights to say that if a member abuses their services in part, they can be restricted from using their services in whole.



In that respect I agree. However, it is a fact that when a person takes an unpopular or unique stance, there is a finite chance they may get negative fallout for it. There's no such thing as a guaranteed right to posting on these forums. However, basic steps such as politeness, phrases that are not laden with negative connotations or hostile tone, and even knowing sometimes when not to post, they go a long way to improving one's chances of staying.


- Newfie

Phew. I gotta admit I didn't read any of those messages. I'm not sure where you folks find the time.



Sigh. I guess you're right!

Chip Midnight
Aimee Weber

Sorry folks, I'm sad to say, but it's true.

I nominate this post for a Weber Award.

I'm thinking about announcing the Cocoanut Koala Awards for Forum Participation. Most Logical, Most Kind, Most Welcoming, Most Inclusive, Most Open-Minded, etc. I would accept suggestions, but there would be no nominations and no panel.

coco

Some people make childish remarks when they are being called to task. I suppose its deflection.

Someone acts in such a manner that they upset others. So instead of admitting where they can see why the others are upset, and either apologizing or not - they instead attempt to belittle the whole conversation.

I think when someone acts in such a way as to upset a whole thread's worth of people, they should at least say. "Well I dont agree with your opinions, but I do see why you are bothered." Its basic aknowledgement of other's veiwpoints.

Hmmm, maybe I should retire this alt and start using one of my other ones more aggressively.

My post count is getting a bit high, plus it'd be fun to post from within the FIC for awhile..


Prokofy is evil! Aimee Weber is so cool, I love those Preen clothes. <swoon> Chip rules! Da Panty Baron! SLUniverse and SLBlogger are the place to be! Goooo snapzillla! Eat Watermelon!

Don't be a tease!

I guess maybe I dont understand.

I dont have a problem with you not liking the Status Quo. Though the "sky is falling stuff" annoys me.

The problem I have is having the nerve to accuse someone of existing only as a manipulated image "brand" - becuase by your own admission that is how you behave. You have no evidence that Aimee or most of the other regular posters act in such a way. In fact I would argue we have evidence to the contrary.

Furthermore you admit you say things just to manipulate blaze's image and the image of your <establishment> alts. That makes things you say suspect.

Oh, I admit I could be completely wrong.

Which/What statements/issues are you admitting you could be wrong about?

Oh, every last one

bah! Fine. Be that way. I guess I wouldn't have believed you anyway.

Yah know, even if someone is your best friend I hope you don't necessarily trust them.

I mean, they may be completely well intentioned, sincere and honest - but that doesn't mean they can't be completely wrong.

Sure, I may seem deceitful and manipulative, but who knows .. if my logic is sound and I cite my evidence, do you really care?

I believe trust is the foundation of any *true* relationship. Even close friends. Now there are varying degrees of friendship and such, and many I consider "friends" I would not 100% trust about just anything. But the closer friends I have, yes, I would trust them. However, when it comes to issues, I always do my own research and never "just take someone's word for it". That however has nothing to do with trust, it has to do with being able to self educate myself.

If your logic is sound and you cite your evidence, do I really care? Well, I know I would be less likely to give you the benefit of the doubt from the get-go. In other words, I would probably dis-believe you first, then do my own research. Whereas if someone I trusted said the same thing, I would most likely feel they were probably correct, but would still do my own research.

In other words, I would approach you both differently in the way that I read your information.

I tend to see the forums as an arena for theoretical debate and not one for socializing, I guess, which is probably why I rub so many the wrong way.

Trust - an interesting and many-layered thing.

I trust everyone instantly from the get-go, to behave as reasonable people on nearly every useful count. (In other words, if I left a million dollars out on the street and watched to see if someone - including my friends - took it, that would not be a useful test.)

Beyond that, I adjust my trust according to behavior.

In one person's case, I may learn they cannot ever be trusted to act as a friend of mine, because they will pretend to be reaching out and then stab me in the back. I distrust that person entirely, on virtually every level, when it comes to anything to do with me. That person I will avoid entirely evermore.

In a friend's case, I will trust them to be basically a friend, while being imperfect, and having flaws.

Those flaws I discover then become things I don't trust IN them. In other words, I know one girlfriend can't resist gossiping about everybody in an occasional negative light, so I know I can't trust her not to say something about me behind my back. But due to a myriad other reasons, such as being a good and (overall) loyal and faithful friend, she is still my friend, and I know I can trust her with anything really important, and for always.

In Blaze's case, what I have now are additional pieces of information. Already I had learned not to trust that he was a unique individual, as I thought at first. Now I have learned not to trust him to not argue against himself, me, or anyone else in lynch- mob type behavior.

However, I still trust him to use this alt to say things he feels as truths that he wouldn't dare say as one of his "real" persons. (If any of them do, in fact, qualify as more real than the others.)

In that sense, I still trust him to provide a counter point of view on a lot of things, and on a number of them, I agree. Since in most cases very few people on these forums ever attest to agreeing with me on anything at all, I value his presence here, just so I'm not the only person daring to say something. That's why I don't want him to retire this alt.

coco

It's all about me.

Blaze. You, along with a few other people (one of whom is now banned), seem to have this frame of mind that once someone reaches a certain level of success or notoriety, they no longer deserve respect or common courtesy. It's open season to make slanderous statements about their motivations and to call their ethics into question without a shred of supporting evidence. It's as if you think when someone's name becomes synonymous with an in world business they're no longer a human being with feelings. That attitude reeks of callous disrespect and flat out assholery. Aimee doesn't have any alts. I have one alt that's used for testing that I never have and never will post on the forums with. I would never pretend to be more than one person to prop up my own arguments. That's simply a pathetic thing to do. So what's your evidence? "Well I'm a pathological liar without any integrity so everyone else must be one too." Pfft. That's hardly what I'd call "logic." That's just trying to justify and rationalize your own crappy (and creepy) behavior.