SL Burnout!?!?!

Well, from how I can see the tides in this churning, it looks like being opressed by governmental players in SL is almost inevitable. I would ask that at a minimum the following are considered "inalienable rights":

1) The right to build what I want, where I want, how I want on my own land.

2) The right to never have any of my objects or land taken from me without removing them my self, of my own volition.

Obviously, #1 and #2 being subject to the Linden existing terms for such. I just quite frankly don't want someone coming along 2 months from now with a big group in Taber, forming a government in the Sim i've existed happily in, and all of the sudden saying my objects there no longer fit in with their plans, and I must remove them, release my land, and leave. Which quite frankly, is exactly what all of you are proposing with this 'government', even if you cannot see it.

Basically from what has been said, as long as they have more people and "pass the vote" they can do whatever they want to the individual.

It will be a sad, sad day for SL if this comes about. Remember, with power, comes the abuse of power. Which is why such power should never be placed in the hands of mortal men. Any governmental rules should be made with the invariable fact in mind, humans are flawed as are their thinking. Rather than thinking of imposing your will or "the will of the people" upon others, you should think of how we must STOP people from imposing their will on others.

I haveto second what si is saying:

We should not grant any special powers to gamers unless they are directly related to their ability to OWN their land. If a person is capable of maintaining control of a sim by owning the land, it should be their right to dictate what goes on it. But otherwise, people, learn to live and let live.

in reply to what si said above:

si you're exactly right about the taking away a persons land thing. i think the issue of governmental power really comes down to that. if we are to have governments/communities then we need the power to be able to choose who can and can't be in the community. this means that the community should in some way have the power to kick someone out and take their land (somehow).

i don't like the idea of a big group kicking me out of my land either so thats why i think the idea of having governmental sims and anarchistic sims is good. but i think in a governmental area we should be prepared to have to live by the rule of a government. otherwise how can a community/government have any power?

Actually this isn't what I had in mind at all, so don't put words in my mouth...

I don't think a "gov" should be simwide at all, each gov should only control the land it owns... This is why we need group land.... The gov or nation grows as it grows in members and the tax base can afford more land.... Therefore they can't tell you to get lost because you own that land and you are not part of that gov or nation... But the gov could offer to purchase the land from you for a hefty sum.

See what I'm saying... I don't want a sim to just be taken over by people either.. but if there were group land then that problem would be resolved and you would just be their neighbor..

JV

Glad to hear it Jon. I wasn't implying a specific person was asking for that, but there have certainly been requests as such. I'm all for giving the owner of land more rights to it's control, and allowing group ownership of land as well. No complaints at all, ever on that one.

My fears lie entirely on those who are requesting that entire sims be governed by parties, regardless of land ownership. I don't like that idea, even restricted to "participating sims".

I don't either even though i'm a major proponent of this system...

I think was i described would be much more interesting.

Make like half or less even of the sims, governable... then the gov's have to grow, and you can watch borders grow and shrink, heck part of one gov could be in a mature and the other half of it could be in a PG.... It would be very interesting.

If you made a gov have control over 1 sim, it wouldn't be as fun and would be much more limiting... I'd rather see gov's competing for land and such and be much more organic.

JV

I think you've got something there. Governments would be limited to controlling what goes on in their land and airspace, and they wouldn't be delineated by something so arbitrary as the borders of a simulator. Anyone who doesn't like their rules can go around. I think that would work out pretty well for the themed sims. The only problem I see at first glance is... what if they take over a "bottleneck" zone such as Boardman/Tan/Plum (ok, Plum is not a concern) or Taber/Welsh/Clyde? Could get a little wierd, especially if they decided to charge for overflight rights or some such.

You'd also need some kind of automatic debit system for taxes. Owning even 1/16th of a 100% owned sim (with the attendant tax break) is still... what... L$2500 each and every single week? Ouch! Makes it a challenge to be anything other than a one-person land holding company!

I think a good way to do this would be to have the government own the land, and to assign parcels to people, much like in the real world. The government would be able to edit the land, and so would a specific person or group. So you could assign one plot to a person and another part to a group ("civil engineers" etc, for building parks or whatever).

Well I think i've mentioned before, but the way to solve the tax issue, is to set up a group tax method... Just like any normal gov the citizens get taxed. This tax goes into a group fund that can be used to pay land and object taxes and buy new land and build new public facillities...

Also about the bottleneck thing.... obviously the Lindens will still have power over these gov.s and if they restrict other players in that way, beware of themighty lindens

So we would still have some limits on what they can do.

JV

I get the funny feeling something has been taken out of context....

I specifically ment "new" sims...

Not any of the existing sims. Only future sims, much like how the Themed sims were setup.

Also note this....

If the government you want is total anarchy chaos and strife well now that is a kind of form of government isnt it?

This could be in an application to the "new" sim idea.

Apply for such an area so that it is guarenteed to stay that way. Its open ended applications that I was thinking of for new sims only.

Anyone could apply for a sim as restricted as all possable or lax as all possable. It covers anything really.

Quoting Huns Valen:
>Any online company like Linden Lab is going to have people watching its network
>24x7x365. It's just the cost of doing business. If someone has "enforcement"
>powers these should be limited to paging the tech on duty, explaining the
>nature of some violation, and having the tech verify and handle the
>transgressor. I do not want to see other SL residents with more power than
>myself because I don't trust them to use it to everyone's advantage. A
>dispassionate third party like Linden Lab is the only way to go.


You're absolutely right that that the Company (sorry for using that term, it's just easier for me to type than Linden Labs, and I enjoy the Orwellian implications, true or false should be the final arbiter of all these things - simply because none of us can play here at all as long as the game isn't turning some sort of profit. At one point in my colorful online history, I was a Guide on AOL (BEFORE the PC Folks came over to "terrorize" the Apple users . In that role, I was often called to quell bickering - usually platform wars between the Mac and IIgs users(!). The process was simple: once I determined that there was an urgent TOS violation (swearing, abuse), I captured evidence and sent a warning to the perpetrator. If there wasn't an immediate abatement, I sent the evidence - and a copy of my warning - to the sysadmin. They then did the Deed - or didn't.

I have NO problem with such a system. BUT, I also have no problem with a system that allows elected players to handle the situations that LEAD UP TO those crises. If Linden Labs is willing to delegate some sort of "crowd control" abilities, or special tools, I see no problem with empowering the citizenry. It would certainly go far to promote the microcosmic sense that Linden Labs has professed an interest in.


>As long as these bare minimum requirements don't force people to leave you
>alone when you enter Jessie, I don't have a problem with that, at least not
>RIGHT NOW. I really hope you aren't trying to use underhandedness to push
>Linden Lab in the direction of making Jessie as safe as its neighbors.
>Honestly, there are 48 sims on the grid (I just counted them) and I don't think
>it's too much to ask that one single sim be available to folks like me who
>enjoy a walk on the wild side every now and then.


Well, you may not be paying attention. I don't think any of our previous discussions contained evidence that I was a sneaky under-handed person. I tend to speak the truth as I see it, and I tend to say it loudly. Have you seen me sneak? Or do you attribute negative traits to an individual based only on suspicions you have about a group? I'll stop short of calling that what it is.

I never suggested that Jessie be homogenized. I don't want it to be "safe" any more than you do. If you had actually listened to my words in the past, instead of assuming that you could read my shallow little mind based on my flag and my gender, you would have heard that my argument WASNT against the nature of the Outlands - it was against the assumption that the "freedom" of the Outlands gives you authority from Linden Labs to be abusive. Now, in your mind, perhaps you don't see the difference between warfare and abuse. I admit it is a bit of a complicated concept. BUT, trust me - or any REAL soldier or revolutionary or anarchist - that there IS a difference between any of these forms of direct social action and the behavior of a ill-mannered child with an automatic weapon and a deep disregard for the human race.

At any rate, I am NOT campaigning for ANY sort of change in the Outlands (although I do support its expansion). When I suggest a universal standard of behavior, I am ONLY talking about helping the confused folks among us understand what we MEAN when we talk about the harassment ALREADY prohibited - even in Jessie - by the Linden Labs Community Standards.

I'd appreciate it if you would resist the urge to color me with your "liberal" crayon from now on. If I have not made a point clearly enough, PLEASE ask me to make it clear. If, on the other hand, you insist on arguing against your IMAGE of what you THINK I mean, then please keep it to yourself. You'll notice that I always wait for you to SHOW your animosity BEFORE I accuse you of it. Try to practice the same restraint.


>Again I am smelling something a little "off" with this line of discussion. All
>this "the Company" jargon and such, it is raising red flags for me. Maybe I'm
>totally wrong, but reading "The Art of War" and "The Prince" has caused me to
>question the motives behind management- and politician-speak.


I don't do politician-speak. If that is what you hear, then you may be reacting to the fact I'm better read in politics than some folks. If so, then I apologize and will try to have less fun with my language when I suspect you may be reading.

Once again, I'll TELL you my motives. I like to see people empowered. I like to see people reach for, and achieve, something greater than the mere appeasement of their appetites. I like to watch people struggle for things bigger than themselves. And, I like to watch groups work together to build those bigger things. I like these things very much. I happen to believe that there are a lot of exciting times ahead for players who want to TRY NEW THINGS. How radical would it be to create a REAL virtual community - not just a cool place to play, but also a place where we can do things that have never been done before? Is it wrong to want to try it?

Just to beat the horse's corpse a bit more, don't assume I was "shocked" by my adventures in Jessie. Far from it. If anything, I was monstrously BORED by what sure looked like just another version of Quake spawn camping. (Worse yet, spawn campers who felt it wasn't LAME to be spawn campers!) After many years of Quake, Half-Life, and Counter Strike, I have a particular disdain for people who press an unfair advantage to the extreme of actively preventing another player from playing – just because they can get away with it. Unfortuantely, I can’t boot campers from the server and I have to appeal to their better nature instead.

Anyway, I am looking for NEW adventures. And I tend to be short tempered with people who simply don't respond to the potential presented by this technology. Still, I understand that it isn't ME who gets to dictate how other people need to respond to it. (In fact, that has been one thing that keeps irritating me in the replies I get whenever I talk about these things - people who tell me that my responses are simply WRONG. Kinda rude, dontcha think?) I am not out to impose my standards on other people. Instead, what I propose is that ALL the residents have their say in determining the RANGE of compatible standards for ALL the various types of sims. I said NOTHING about making every sim the same. Isn't it possible to define "harassment" and "abuse" universally, while having different standards of behavior in different sims? Is your fear of being repressed so great that you reject ALL standards in order to keep repressive rules away? That seems a bit paranoid, self-destructive and selfish, if you don't mind my saying.

However, as I asked you to do earlier when you accused my of trying to impose some sort of universal Law on everyone, I'll stop short of an accusation and just ASK you: why do you want to impose universal lawlessness on everyone - regardless of where they live? I will certainly give you the benefit of the doubt and assume from the start that you aren't just angry that we aren't playing our “roles” properly inside YOUR fantasy.


>Certain levels of mutual respect must be baseline? In every sim? Mein Gott. I
>knew it, I knew it! You want the equivalent of a UN peacekeeping force to
>escort you through the Outlands, suppressing those filthy rebels who dare to
>shoot at you! Why can't you just leave them ALONE? You have 47 other sims to
>play in, and they just have the one! Christ on the cross, lady! ONE SIM!!! ONE
>sim for us to go to when we want to live dangerously. CAN WE PLEASE JUST HAVE
>THE ONE SIM PLEASE AND THANK YOU!!?!??!??
>
>I've read Machiavelli and Sun-Tzu. I know your game.


Well, I didn't write those books. On the other hand, I have read them and I’m having trouble remembering the parts that you seem to think sum me up so clearly. Perhaps you'll research that a bit and get back to me in-world for a lively discussion. We could sell tickets

And, yes, "Certain levels of mutual respect must be baseline." TRY to see beyond your initial reactions, and look at the Linden Labs Community Standards again. No matter how poorly you read them, they say there is a certain level of behavior that comes BEFORE any modifications by the ratings on a sim. "Our rules are simple: treat each other with respect and without harassment, adhere to local standards as indicated by simulator ratings, and refrain from any hate activity which slurs a real-world individual or real-world community." Are you trying to imply that a simulator's ratings might OVERRIDE the requirement for respect and the prohibition against harassment? I will again assume you can't be that self-centered. Surely you understand that the requirements of the Community Standards are that we somehow manage to adhere to a sim's rating WHILE AT THE SAME TIME managing to respect each other and not harass each other. I ask again, are you insisting that this is too difficult for us?

I don't think it is too difficult. I think we can create a statement - from the community - that clears up what might seem to you to be an irresolvable contradiction. I think we can have mutual respect, the end of harassment AND snipers in the Outlands. Why don't you?

And while we're at it, let me clear up one of your recurrent misconceptions. I have NO interest in suppressing anyone in the Outlands - or anywhere else. My insistence on traveling through the Outlands un-HARASSED was simply because I expect you all to follow those already existent rules - not because I want peace in the Outlands. Again, if you heard me cry out for Peace, then you weren't listening very well. I've NEVER called anyone to task over ANYTHING but the abuse you think is your due in Jessie. I think you are mistaken, you think I'm stupid and scared of guns. That's all there seems to be to this, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop bringing it up whenever you feel a need to discredit my opinion on other topics. Try arguing the merits instead. Thanks.


>If they ever let kids into Second Life, I hope they put them on a totally
>different continent on a different grid of servers that you can't get to even
>by teleporting. Many of us don't want to have to deal with kids in SL (some
>because they already have kids in RL they want to get away from, ha!). 'Sides,
>I don't know about you folks but I've seen some really creepy avatars, and the
>thought of my nieces interacting with them makes me bilious.
>
>If we HAVE to have minors on the grid, I can live with it if there is a minimum
>age restriction, like 16. But even that would probably be a pain, knowing how
>self-centered people are at that age (even though they would like to believe
>otherwise).


The more I talk to various Lindens about this, the more I believe they really are going to give it a try. I am strongly against it, because I have seen what happens when anonymous adults have free access to un-supervised children. Not pretty. However, I think Linden Labs is going to do their best to make it happen.

So, in the spirit of NOT being Machiavellian, underhanded or sneaky, I must let you know that this is actually part of my motivation for some sort of socio-political growth in Second Life. Now, before you jump up and down and cry "Aha!" and thump your chest and gibber, try to understand that I do NOT want to make this world all soft and cuddly for the kiddies. I happen to believe that there is NOTHING on Second Life that can hurt them seriously - not even in the mature areas or in the Outlands. (I suspect most of them could make meat-pies out of the WWIIOLers anyway - unless it is our reluctance to have any standards of behavior at all. When the only reaction a kid can expect from us in response to clearly disrespectful behavior from an adult is a UNIVERSAL shoulder shrug, then it is WAY WRONG to bring them into this world. Period. If we intend to create an actual COMMUNITY here, then we have to get on with the work of doing so.

Just to refresh the memory of those who may, by now, think this is all my crazy "underhanded" plan to dominate the Real Men, take their toys away and stuff a teat in their faces, let me close with a quote from the Community Standards that we ALL - *A*L*L* - agree to every time we log on....


"Wherever possible, Second Life will become self-governed. At the outset, Linden staff will be the primary 'judge and jury' and will review any reports of harassment or violations of local standards. Additionally, we are working on a set of features which will help you direct your experience including the ability to ignore chat from specific avatars. Eventually, however, system mechanisms will be put in place to allow Residents to respond to complaints or reports of unacceptable behavior. Long-term Second Life will be self-governing, relying on the broad concepts of tolerance, freedom of expression, and local community."


Let me note the apparent expectations - by Linden Labs - that the residents of Second Life are expected to eventually take over some of the "judge and jury" tasks, and that eventually RESIDENTS are going to be empowered to respond to certain complaints. These are exactly the same bizarre suggestions I've made here. The same suggestions that are so "underhanded" by some folks' estimations. I didn't make this stuff up so I could "bring Peace to the Outlands." Linden Labs made it up as part of the grand experiment that makes this world so attractive to THEM - and most of us.

In closing (really this time I reiterate: "Long-term Second Life will be self-governing, relying on the broad concepts of tolerance, freedom of expression, and local community."

So stop discussing IF we will self-govern. It's time to discuss HOW we will self-govern.

Definatly agree

Kathy,

We are on completely different ends of the political spectrum and often times i find myself disagreeing with your views, but let me just say.


THANK YOU.

wonderful post, balanced and brilliant.

The funniest part of this, people are complaining they want their freedom to do as they please and that this is the reason why this can't be implemented, but by saying no to this they are hindering OUR FREEDOM to play the game as we wish.

I love how many people that complain about people suppressing their freedom have no problem suppressing others.

I look forward to the day we can run against each other for a political seat in SL

JV

Actually, I believe most of the reactionary responses I've run into in various online worlds have tended to be CULTURAL differences more than political or philosophical differences. Players bring the culture of Counter Strike, or TSO, or usenet, or WWIIOL, or the streets of South Side Chicago, with them when they log on. This isn't bad - it's just something to be aware of. Something to take into account when creating THIS culture out of those scraps. For instance, I am not surprised that folks from WWIIOL found my appeals to be suspect and inflammatory – given what I read in Hamlet Linden’s latest article. If they were looking for shelter from anti-war protestors when they moved here, then it’s likely they saw me as one of the enemy – even though I had nothing to say about the Real World or the war in Iraq at all. They brought with them the red flags and tender spots from their home-world and I brought a healthy dose of my own cultural experiences. Guess we came from different cultures

Though it might be tempting to suppose that Second Life is the place where all these different cultures can transplant themselves and live together in perfect harmony, I think that’s not realistic. We will – whether we like it or not – eventually create a Second Life culture out of the cultural shards people bring to this world. It will occur organically at least, if not through more controlled methods, but it WILL happen. And when it does, it will be just as universal as some folks fear. That’s what happens with emergent cultures – they spread as far as mobility and technology allow, regardless of how the participants feel about it. And when they clash, it’s always exciting However, it’s hard to say how positive or persistent the new culture will be.

This is where we are right now in the arc of Second Life’s life. We brought all our various cultural baggage – online and offline – and we will now go through the Hegelian dialectic that creates the future culture of this electronic planet. Initial growth is always the weak point in the lifecycle of virtual culture. If growth is too slow, there isn’t enough diversity to feed the synthesis – instead, the few groups represented generally find some way to avoid the hard work and either compromise, ignore each other, make peace, or disperse. None of these methods will create a lasting culture.

If growth is too quick, or the work is held off too long, then the press of disparate perspectives is so overwhelming that there is little chance for a permanent indigenous culture to evolve. In fact, there develops a culture whose sole ubiquitous aspect is internecine struggle. (Several examples of this can be seen in various newsgroups on usenet, or in the complete destruction of the first emergent AOL culture when it was “blended” in one moment with “PC Link”.)

Finally, if there is too much outside – or corporate - control over the process, the culture will reflect that, too. “There” suffers from this kind of totalitarianism and, so, has shallow, process-driven interactions. There is little chance of long-term cultural growth in a world that exists primarily to charge users extra cash to buy hover boards and dune buggies.

So, the most important chore in culture-building (or allowing one to develop) is timing. Letting the population and diversity grow to where there are enough ingredients in the stew. Acting before the population is so large that it overwhelms the hard work of the early settlers. Wresting enough control from the creators so that the creative aspect of the culture can have the room it needs to develop – which feeds back to fuel even more cultural growth.

I have a fairly strong feeling that the time to lay the foundations for our future is coming soon. We don’t have to achieve any particular milestone, but we do have to begin the work.





Heh, yeah. I’m not sure that political office will afford me the fluidity I need to accomplish my goals Once I gain power, it makes it hard for me to speak for the powerless

On the other hand, the thought of how much trouble I could cause as a Congress Person really intrigues me

But the democrats "represent" the powerless...

oh wait, nevremind they don't..... they represent their pockets... sorry i forgot

lol sorry i had to throw that in

I so agree with you this whole world is going to be very interesting to watch involve and even if it turns into a leftist paradise (please no! ) I will still enjoy watching it grow and change.

Interestingly the creativity in SL brought mostly creative and left thinking people into SL from what i have seen.... if the Left has the power in SL, would you represent those of us on the right Kathy, since you want to represent the powerless?

Intriguing thought to say the least.

JV

If you ever find yourself trapped in a (highly unlikey!) liberal hegemony, where you aren't being properly represented or heard, then you can bet your sparse Republican ethics that I'll be there for you

(I wouldn't worry though. People on the left have a remarkable ability to scuttle their own political ambitions. Not real sure why, but for evidence simply look at the 2000 election

So, let me know if you start feeling repressed. I'd be very glad to rant on your behalf

I think you need to think a bit further into what you just said, as you created a nice catch-22 for yourself on that one.

The reason why I have no problem hindering the freedoms of those playing the game in the ways which started this thread, is their entire hinderance is in wanting to control what OTHER people do.

I will never tell you what you cannot build.

I will never tell you where you cannot build.

I will never tell you how you should build.

But I *require* these things from you as well. Never will I stand for you telling me what I can or can't do, nor would I stand for doing the same to you.

Your freedoms shall never be "hindered" by me, as long as what you consider "your" freedom is in fact YOURS, not MINE. I think this is where people are losing their perspective.

Little backgrounder, for people who don't know what me 'n Kathy are arguing about... It all starts on page two of the original thread.

Well, in this post alone you have accused me of being a sexist and a liberal-hater. "I'll stop short of calling that what it is" is a common way of delivering a thinly-veiled insult. "Read my shallow little mind based on my flag and my gender" really can't get any more obvious.

We ALL know you are irked because some people messed with you in the one place where you have no right to expect otherwise. Of course, no one is demanding that you go there. This incredibly long-winded diatribe that spans over a period of however many weeks (is it months now?) is all about you getting the last laugh on people who might not even be members any more by changing the fundamental rules of the game. Yes, you really are that transparent. That's why no one had your back in the other thread. Even people who thought those guys should have stopped shooting at you, acknowledged that you shouldn't have gone there with no protection.

In Jessie, I can BE an ill-mannered child with an automatic weapon. Any other sim, no. But that one place, yes. I don't have to respect your personal space. I can imprison or kill anyone I want, and if someone else imprisons or kills me, I can't complain because, hey, I WENT TO JESSIE, and that's just the kind of thing that is allowed there. BY EDICT OF LINDEN LAB, ref. p. 70, Beta Reference Guide.


Even though, on page 70 of the Beta Reference Guide, which I referred to the last time I saw you sqwawking about this, IT SAYS:

"By default, all land - other than the Outlands - is safe. Avatars cannot be damaged there, and violent and aggressive behavior isn’t welcome. On the other hand, in the Outlands and in areas where land owners have decided to allow avatar damage, these behaviors are allowed - even expected."

But NOOOOO, it isn't enough you have the rest of the world to play in, you want the rules to be changed so that people have to ASK YOUR PERMISSION to shoot at you in the ONE SINGLE SIM.

I think you are mistaking me for someone else. I do not recall bringing gender politics or political alignments into this discussion at any point, and yet you accuse me as though I had.

Et tu!

BWAHAHAHA!!! Whatever! If you don't want to be called on this ridiculous nonsense then don't spew it!

Yeah right, your motives are to have the last laugh!!!

Oh, you were BORED. I see. That must explain why you kept returning there, and even set your home location there for a short time, instead of going somewhere where you wouldn't be bothered.

You ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN THIS!!! And you complain that they prevented you from playing? They dangled some bait and you ate it, hook, line and sinker! You could have gone ANYWHERE ELSE but you CHOSE not to. This is about YOU imposing YOUR will on others in a place where you can't.

Your short temper is what got you into this mess!

If there are universal standards for this, then what the hell is the point of even HAVING the Outlands? If everyone has to respect everyone else in every sim, then Jessie becomes a pointless relic. The point of Jessie is to have a place where people CAN shoot at each other whenever they want, without having to worry about a bunch of RULE-LAWYERING.

There is a standard of behavior in Jesse. Don't upload copyrighted or illegal materials. That goes for EVERY sim, so it is universal. Why do we need anything more restrictive than that?

What do you base this accusation on? When did I ever say that I wanted to impose "universal lawlessness" on everybody, regardless of where they live? I keep talking about other sims, where there are rules about taking potshots at people.

Maybe you should TRY to look at the handbook again, specifically page 70 of that same beta reference guide I quoted you in that other thread.

What would you say qualifies as harassment in a region which is SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED in the handbook as being a place where you can be shot at or imprisoned? IMPRISONED, you understand. As in, detained against your will. You're just reading the rules and applying your own slant to them.

When are you going to admit that you made a mistake building your temple there before you knew the rules? Never, I suspect... you'd much rather say the rules were wrong than to reassess your original conclusions.

Yeah you do, you want them to leave you alone in an area where they don't HAVE to leave you alone. An area set aside for JUST THAT SORT OF CHICANERY.

I think you are confusing me with someone else you may have debated with in the past.

Yet still taken a slight out of context Si,

This is intended for only special sims that aren't yet in world.

That was the intent of the start of this. So actualy idf you don't settle in a government sim, I or no one is limiting you or telling "you" what to do.

Just thought I'd say it again.

I am not for turning existing sims into a vote for government rule, that would be nonproductive and oppressive.

But the idea of having a few sims set aside is so that some of us that like playing with order and a common goal in a regulated air CAN.

as Johnathon says:

The funniest part of this, people are complaining they want their freedom to do as they please and that this is the reason why this can't be implemented, but by saying no to this they are hindering OUR FREEDOM to play the game as we wish.The funniest part of this, people are complaining they want their freedom to do as they please and that this is the reason why this can't be implemented, but by saying no to this they are hindering OUR FREEDOM to play the game as we wish.

So in effect by opposing this idea for a few sims you are doing what you say you wouldn't which is this...

But I *require* these things from you as well. Never will I stand for you telling me what I can or can't do, nor would I stand for doing the same to you.

which is funny cuz your last post contradicts itself. You say you have no problem hindering anyone who stands for this idea, but you say as quoted above that you wouldn't.

You want your freedoms, so let us have ours. If we wish to play in a controlled sim....Let us. You can keep your builds where you have em. The world will be big enough, in fact it is fairly sizable as it is.

Speaking of controlled sims...The themed sims are not to far off from what this idea is. They are controlled, you can't build just anything, and you have to be accepted into the area to even build.

I don't see you complaining about that. Or saying it is hindering your game play...

Plz reply with what ya think. I believe even tho we differ greatly on our views here, SL as a whole can grow from a debate such as this.

In a sense your right it is a catch 22 but not quite..

Lets look at it from both sides....

My way, you can't build whatever you want in the gov. sims but you can anywhere else.

Your way, I can't play the way I want, period.

Yes you will be restricted in certain areas that are made "governable" but you can still go anywhere you want.

If this is shot down you have restricted my enjoyment of the game without giving me someplace else to go like you have.


JV

Applauds Jonathan I feel exactly the same way and could not of put it simplier Very well said.

Cat

Also, Si one thing you are forgetting is this... a oft quoted part of the community standards...

"Governance
Wherever possible, Second Life will become self-governed. At the outset, Linden staff will be the primary ‘judge and jury’ and will review any reports of harassment or violations of local standards. Additionally, we are working on a set of features which will help you direct your experience including the ability to ignore chat from specific avatars. Eventually, however, system mechanisms will be put in place to allow Residents to respond to complaints or reports of unacceptable behavior. Long-term Second Life will be self-governing, relying on the broad concepts of tolerance, freedom of expression, and local community. "


This has been planned by LL from the beginning, it is not something we have sprung on you. It is not even our idea alone. It is something that Linden Labas has wanted from the start and if you have ever read the community standards you would know this.

All we are saying is that the time is now.

Though we may feel very strongly about our view Si, no hard feelings ok, nothing we are saying should be personal I hope.

I only mention it because I know often things have gotten personal on these message boards when people can't handle debate without getting angry.

JV

BRAVO!!!!!! I couldn't have said it better myself Si. There's probably no idea more likely to spawn the reasons I'll end up leaving SL than player run government. If group of people want to buy up a bunch of adjoining land and set up their own governmental system there, great... more power to ya. But if people want to start making arbitrary and restrictive rules and impose them on others... bye. Nice knowing you all

Look, Hun,

This is getting too long to quote and WAY far off topic. And I've made all the points I wanted to make for those reading this misadventure. I'm not expecting you to change. We've run into the same rut as before. You firmly believe you know what I mean. I explain that you misunderstand me, and then you accuse me of lying. If I say any more that doesn't jibe with your very first analysis, you accuse me of more lying. For the rest of all time, you'll believe I have nothing more on my mind than a day in Jessie and thou.

So, whatever. I resolved back then to give you a wide berth and would have managed it if you hadn't found the time to respond to my response to Philip Linden.

Yes, I DID imply that you were speaking like a sexist and that you were quick to belittle liberals. It wasn't an insult - it was an observation. I didn't mean it to have any sort of veil over it at all - let alone the thin veil you accuse me of attempting. I stopped short of naming it so other readers could come to their own conclusions without me insisting on my own my judgment, but at this point, it's not judgment - its discernment. You have never NOT replied to me in disrespectful, belittling, dismissive, accusatory, sarcastic, ridiculous manner. Either you are arrogant, sexist, and prejudiced, or you have some therapeutically challenging social issues you aren't sharing with us. Or maybe you're just being abusive.

As for the rest of your missive, there isn't anything different from what I talked to before. You still insist this is all about my getting all out of joint from being shot. As I have REPEATEDLY said, it just plain isn't. I have handled my business in Jessie just fine, thank you. I've dealt with whatever needed dealing with. ONE MORE TIME FOR THE RECORD: it was never about being shot. It was about being insulted and harassed. (Oh, I'm SO sure that THIS repetition finally got through to you. :-/) And I Don't Care What Sim You Are In! It has to do with EVERYONE - even if they are SHOOTING YOU - treating you with respect and not insulting you and harassing you. Are you really unable to conceive of defeating someone without having to pee all over them, too?!? Or is it simply that you find the requirement to retain some self-control distasteful? And so you need to denigrate ME as much as possible so that my POINT isn't heard?

Loud/Slow version... IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE SIM'S RULES ARE - YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO INSULT PEOPLE AND HARASS THEM - ANYWHERE! GET OVER IT.

I believe you will lose in the end. Linden Labs will have to come out clearly - eventually - and say that, while shooting and sniping and running over avatars with tanks is perfectly fine in certain areas, it is NOT fine to attack their owners personally and constantly, nor to put up some sort of set-and-forget shield to keep them from playing at all. Hey, wait a minute, I think they DID say that....

You keep referring to the part of the BETA handbook that you think gives you the right to be abusive in Jessie. I've already pointed out that - for normal readers - that passage does not supersede the passage in the Community Standards that says we ALL must be respectful and not harass each other. If you have difficulty understanding that, then perhaps Linden Labs should make it remedially clear in the RELEASE version of the manual. In short, I think you’ve found a documentation "bug" that you happen to like very much. I know you'll be sorry to see it fixed.

And FINALLY (I hope) let me revisit - briefly - the episode that started all this, since you've managed to mangle that so much over the last few months, and I'd prefer you not get to rewrite history just to make me look feeble. I did not "participate" in anything or respond to any "bait." I wafted over the wall and was shot. In the ensuing "discussions", I derided the shooter for being so cowardly as to shoot unarmed civilians. Perhaps he misunderstood and thought I was talking about the RULES - like you seem to think - while I was REALLY talking about how crude I thought this practice was. At any rate, there never did occur a discussion of battlefield ethics, like I was looking for. What I got instead was several more shots mixed in with "Commie" and "Traitor" and "Pinko" and "Stupid" and "Ignorant" and "Anti-American." All terms I happen to find deeply insulting. From then on, I've been talking respect and you've been talking rules. Go figure.

So, forget it. You've already added "Liar" and "Sneak" to the mix, so why would I expect you be any better equipped to handle the distinction between game play and personal invective? Clearly you aren't.

So, blah blah blah, talk to the hand, take it outside, whateEVER. I'm done talking about this with you. Go ahead with the snappy, derisive, sarcastic put-downs I know you feel welling up inside yourself and post whatever you like to demean me. I won't reply and you'll have the last word. Good luck with that.

When have I ever said anything sexist to you? Quote one passage. ONE PASSAGE. I also wanna know where you get off telling me that I'm a liberal-hater.

Or maybe you see too much of your OWN arrogance reflected in my posts. By calling me a sexist, you are being disrespectful, belittling, dismissive, accusatory, AND ridiculous. (I can't say it's sarcastic but other than that you've covered your own behavior pretty well.)

Did you know I gave you a +3 rating at that first Kazenojin meeting, even though I thought you were totally off kilter? Even though, earlier that day, your little kick script ejected me from your land and you said "Some people just have no manners" to me? Not that I replied or tried to get back on your land. (By YOUR standards I probably should have gone back there and made a pest of myself, but for some odd reason, I decided to confine myself to the 99.9% of the grid that isn't owned by you.) A +3 rating after all that obnoxious behavior is hardly the kind of thing someone does out of spite. I don't hate you, I'm not out to get you, I'm not on a mission to degrade you. I just want to point out (to you and everyone else reading this thread) that your earlier post strikes me as being sneaky. Part of that is challenging your credibility. As I see it, your troubles in Jessie and all these long-winded posts are something you have brought upon yourself.

As I see it, Jessie is totally unsafe, and that's how it ought to be. You want to tell people how they should play because you don't like it. Well guess what, that behavior is only tolerated in one out of (as of today) 48 sims. Frankly, many of us do not agree with your sugarcoated version of how Jessie should work. We find it ridiculous to expect that someone who is trying to kill us will do so in a "respectful" manner. This is hot lead, fight-or-flight, live-or-die type stuff, not a luncheon at the round table. You don't like trash-talking, then don't go there... and don't trash-talk yourself, 'cause that doesn't add up. Oh yes, you played your part in this alright, and I'll handle that in the second half of this post.

I consider being imprisoned to be insulting harassment. Yet it's allowed there. OOPS, how do we resolve this now? I'll tell you how I resolved it, I teleported and later someone showed me a trick about sitting on a cube and moving the cube. When Davada's plasma balls started chasing me around I turned on my afterburners and outran them, and then laughed at the guy who sent them after me from the safety of Clyde. Then I started researching ways of repelling the plasma balls so I could walk around with impugnity, until someone cleverer than me figured out how to defeat whatever force field I might have built. INGENUITY is the way to solve problems in Jessie, not running off and trying to change the nature of the game itself.

Did they now? Well then they should have no problem responding to this thread themselves. They're reading this stuff, I know that much. And I really hope they read the second half of this post, so they can see where you are actually coming from.

I don't think that kind of behavior is out of line in Jessie and you do. Ho hum, this is going nowhere.

I don't think you have any evidence that Linden Lab made an error on page 70. They said the behavior outlined was TOLERATED, even EXPECTED. Linden Lab isn't telling me I have to smile while I pull the trigger. And they are giving you n-1 nodes to play in if you don't like it. And now, in your next paragraph, you incriminate yourself of practicing the same "abuse" that you accuse others of perpetrating:

So you derided him, sounds abusive to me. Hmmmmm. I wonder if that's in line with your interpretation of the community standards. Do you see my point?

You earned that when you called him a coward. You can't insult someone and then say "NUH-UH YOU CAN'T INSULT ME BACK!!!" You can't just say things to people that come off as insulting, and then say, "I don't consider it insulting so no one else should either."

Ordinarily I have to give opposing debaters enough rope to hang themselves with... usually they don't bring their own pre-tied noose... sheesh!

You want to legislate respect after you disrespected someone? What are you, two or something?

Guess you can't either, based on what you just said. To me, "Coward" is just as much a fighting word as "Pinko" or "F--" or "N-----". You defined your words as derisive. So by your own standards, you have done what you insist everyone else must refrain from doing. Inside or outside the scope of the game, it's the same: calling a person a(n) "x" is the way that adults flip each other off without actually getting out the middle finger. You may not have INTENDED for it to sound like that, but that doesn't excuse you from thinking about how it sounds.

This is the second time you have used this line to pardon yourself from an argument. Fine, answer or don't answer. I think I got my point across. In this particular instance, your judgement seems... hypocritical.

Well, Hun, you seem to have a knack for making me say and do what I said I wouldn't. Still, I haven't got the energy to go on with this much further. Here's all I have left to say....

1. It is true that you haven't said anything dramatically sexist - at least in this thread, and I don't have the energy to search the last one right now. But my observation actually came from my repeated attempts to elevate the discussion to universal concepts and applications, while you persisted in characterizing everything I said as the deluded rantings of a whiny victim. Forgive me for recognizing that as a typical chauvinistic slant. Perhaps I misunderstood your inability to actually hear what I was talking about. Sorry.

2. You are right that my complaint about being disrespected and abused suffers greatly in light of my accusations of certain players' cowardly behavior. I can only plead provocation. Having been called a Commie Pinko Traitor (without having provoked anyone myself), I followed up by violating my own standards. I also apologize for that.

3. I am thankful for the rating you say you gave me. I do want to point out that I had no easy way of knowing that it was positive - since you had recently lambasted me in public on the other thread, and since you'd rejected my attempt to exchange cards. My mistaken impression again.

And I am sorry you got bumped by my ban box. I put the names of people I don’t trust in there. Nothing personal. And no, I never made any crack about you having "no manners." First, I certainly never saw you get kicked - I'd have remembered THAT. And, second, the comment you attribute to me doesn't even make logical sense. It isn't something I'm likely to say. I think you've confused me with someone else there. Let me go on record: if you let me know that you don't intend to come over to my house and vandalize it or call me a traitor to my country, then I will gladly remove your name from my ban box. Frankly, I'd be very glad to talk to you face to face and would certainly let you sit in my favorite chair.

Since my assumption that you were an abusive person, who couldn't hear anything that didn't fit into his own preconceptions, is the very assumption that made me leave Kazenojin as soon as my membership wasn't crucial to the group's survival, I am doubly regretful. Why didn't I know you were such a generous person? Perhaps it was your presence at the shouting session where I was called a "biatch". But, you're right...it may not have been you that said it and, as you say, I obviously had it coming.

4. We are never going to agree on the relationship between the "respect" clause in the Community Standards and the description of the unsafe zones in the beta handbook. I say the requirement for respect exists during all activities in any zone. You say Jessie is one of the places where you don't have to respect anyone. Until Linden Lab reiterates their intentions - or a player authored Constitution solidifies it, I think we should just not mention this point to each other again.

5. Sure, I understand why you get so sarcastic and angry - you are afraid such a Constitutional movement could be successful, and it's the last thing you want. As hard as I try, I can't get you to hear that it wouldn't have any effect on day to day life in Jessie. If what you do isn't abuse, then nothing you do would ever be prohibited. (Sorry. I know you hate that word.) If someone hasn't the imagination to trash-talk without calling the other person a communist or a traitor, then Perhaps they should pretend to speak in tongues next time they're in a fire fight. I've fired a few shots myself and never ran out of words to the point where I had to insult the guy behind the keyboard. Anyway, like I said, I understand your fear of repression and I promise to keep it in mind as SL politics evolves.

6. You say you "consider being imprisoned to be insulting harassment." I'll make one more attempt to clear something up for you: I DON'T consider being imprisoned, shot, run over, or hit with a bat to be insulting behavior in an unsafe sim. I consider being personally INSULTED to be insulting. I am not trying to stretch any definitions here. By insults, I mean insults. By harassment, I mean harassment. I think putting my name into a plasma cannon that runs around the clock 24-hours a day, and does its best to lock me out out of an entire sim, is classified – even by the Lindens - as harassment. On the other hand, though I may gripe a bit, I don't consider being shot on sight as harassment - merely pointless and irritating. So, you see, I hope, although we obviously disagree on what constitutes abuse, I am trying to be as particular as possible about my own definitions. I'm sorry we can't reach some compromise on our definitions. It might be useful for other folks’ future discussions on these topics.

7. Yeah. I too figured out how to outrun the plasma balls and how not to die while sitting. I never figured out how to repel the plasma balls, but then - as you imply - I may not be as ingenious as you. I'm still working on that one. Otherwise, I really did manage to solve my problems in Jessie. I made peace with most folks, and armed myself against others, and watched out for the rest. As I have said again and again, I really do not have any intention of changing how things work in Jessie. Honest. The discussion I was having with Philip referred to a universal statement that would likely be just as basic and general as the "harassment" passage in the Community Standards. If the Lindens intended the same interpretation as you profess, I'm sure they'll descend the mountain and let us know before we make fools of ourselves and try to make it universal. So, not to worry.

8. Again, you are correct to point out that actually calling someone an abuser is a bit circular. If I say you are arrogant, abusive and dismissive when you call me a biatch or a traitor, then - yes - I am now the one calling people names. Good catch. Mea culpa. Another apology.

9. Can we get past this stupid Jessie episode someday? I'm sick of talking about it, other folks are sick of hearing about it (sorry Hamlet!) and I am very sick of being accused of being anti-Jessie every time I open my mouth about SL politics. It happens to be the reason I'm here - politics. It's my favorite thing. I am here to participate in the same experiment the Lindens declared is going to take place when they announced that we're going to self-govern. I didn't come here to foment, agitate, sabotage, instigate, or cramp anyone's style. They wrote that there will be self-governance - I stayed to participate. Where is the part that says I'm here to make you miserable? You really haven't bothered to talk to me face to face. How do you know what I intend? Are you really basing all your analysis of me on this Jessie crap? Why don't you take the time to talk to me on some OTHER topic? I may surprise you. I know you'd surprise the hell out of me if you walked up and started a conversation about ANYTHING else.

10. I am really not trying to "pardon [my]self from an argument." I really am just ready to give up discussing an event that is VERY unimportant to me, and VERY unimportant to most everyone else. An event that has NOTHING to do with what I was actually talking about, and NOTHING to do with ANY of MY future plans.

Here’s an idea: instead of rehashing this old crap, let's have a nice chat, or a shouting match if you prefer, about what you think about the concept of local government. During this discussion, you can avoid implying that what I say is not what I mean. I will avoid implying that you can't see past my gender, voting party or your own preconceptions. I'll speak plainly, you'll speak respectfully, and we'll both acknowledge that we can't resolve contradictions that the Lindens seem determined to leave in place just so people like you and me can bicker over them.

And afterward, if you like, I’d be happy to meet you on the roof, walk ten paces, turn and fire. Perhaps we could put this crap to sleep that way. Best two out of three?