Ulrika Declared a Terrorist in N'burg

Doubly funny when you write the thing in the first place

I have no idea what's going on but I just rescripted my drama-meter so it can go to 11 now. I worried I might have to add a 12 soon, the way things have been going in SL.

The real humor is that the N'burg ToS is a verbatim copy of the SL ToS that I never finished and that the government never ratified. To add to the list of ironies there's even thread in the N'burg forum of Dianne shredding it.

So, it's an incomplete and unadopted document written after the content was created. Yet it's a document, isn't it?

~Ulrika~

Personally, the real humor is that I remember reading people falling all over themselves giving kudos and expressing admiration and awe about the "document" that you say really isn't one.




As for someone asking about LL favoritism towards N'berg, it's obviously a question of perspective. Much of what can be seen as (being termed) favoritism is easily found in the discussions relating to N'berg's initial proposal and history. Do the work yourself. Obviously, if one is an N'berger or an N'berg supporter, specific incidents of "favoritism" won't be seen as such and therefore my pointing out that very thing won't be seen that way - rather it'll be disputed via redefiniton.

Point is, this was begun as a marketing and "world growth" project by LL, perpetuated by a grup of people palying using other people's money, and ultimately doomed to failure. That demise was long predicted by many when it was first put in place. Shoot the messenger here if you need to... but facts are facts, dispute them however you choose; it'll won't change them.


edit to add: Real humor. A leader of N'berg just publicly resigned and another figure/leader publicly refuses to accept that resignation? What absolute horsepucky! So now once you've accepted a position as a leader, you f** for "life"? ROFLMAO.

The *real* humor is not being beholdant to a document you wrote yourself. Hell if you won't follow your own ideals...

And of course the reinforcement of why I said Government in SL won't work - because folks would take their bat n ball the second something didn't go their own way..

But never in my wildest giggliest dreams did I hope for it to go down like this.. A lolocaust of epic proportions. There is irony there - only not of your creation, you're the subject.

I can't understand one single thing you've written. Seriously, lay off the peyote.

~Ulrika~

It is absolutely delicious, isn't it? The founder becoming the first state-declared terrorist. You can't make stuff like that up.

Enjoy it though quickly, as things will be settled shortly, I'll vanish again, and on the project will go like the Energizer Bunny.

~Ulrika~

Thank you for the personal attack. I enjoyed reporting the post as a direct accusation of me being a drug user.

If LL does not interpret that as a violation of TOS then everyone should take note.

Yes, but again I take comfort in knowing that whenever we REALLY need you, you are simply an invocation away. Beetlejuice....Beetlejuice...BEETLEJUICE!

I don't take 'lay off the peyote' as a personal attack. Have you ever used peyote (as prescribed by a legit medicine man)? I have.. there is very little effect - only a mild stress releif. I can even take peyote despite being allergic to the illegal substance used in it.

It's not really your perception that is important here..... You weren't being talked about.

I think LL wasn't the one being talked about either..

Please, Picabo, get your facts straight before you post these sort of messages. I respect your opinion as I respect the opinion of everyone in SL, but naturally, you either wish to play by the rules, or you don't — there are no "half truths".

To clarify, Linden Lab created a contest "for the preservation of the snow sims", an idea that perhaps made sense to them back in the Autumn of 2004. The winners of the contest would have to create a group and tier up for paying the required tier fees for supporting that land over a period of 4 months, but they wouldn't have to buy that land.

This sort of contest has been done all over Second Life. Just recently, the latest batch of contests were publicly released — the new resident-created infoHubs. Only the focus of the contest changes, and some rules are changed over time.

Now, somehow, people are envious and jealous because they did not participate in that contest and thus did not win. Sincerely, if you're not participating in a contest, it's lunacy to complain that you didn't win and that the winners were somehow "favourites" of LL. Your ranting reminds me of the old joke of the person who prayed to God every day to win the lottery, and God only answered: "but please, at least buy a ticket!!"

The point is, there was just one contestant. Nobody else cared for LL's contest. Perhaps the prize was uninteresting; after all, you had to pay tier anyway (so why bother?), and you couldn't sell the land or do anything with it (LL, for all effects, only allowed you to remain on that sim during a certain period). Since the only project presented at the contest had merit, LL decided that it could go ahead, the project was built, the interesting bit related to the self-government was put to test over that period, and after a certain number of months had elapsed, the land was returned to Governor Linden.

The people that had joined the project had no two choices. Go home, patting at each other's backs, and eventually apply to further contests; or they could move elsewhere, and continue the project. After all, the group still had tier to hold at least a half-sim. After much debate and discussion, the decision was made to go to a private island instead, where land could be "deeded" to pay for the monthly fees, instead of relying upon voluntary tier donations from a rather large group of people.

Please explain where exactly you see "favouritism" here. Do you mean that LL has actively prevented other people of participating in this contest? That would be a very serious and grave accusation, and I would like to see supporting documentation. Or do you mean that LL did that contest specifically for a certain group to win? That argument is even more frail; not only LL continued for a while to promote similar contests (most of them with more interesting "prizes", like not having to pay for tier), but the whole group of Neualtenburg was only formed after the contest was launched...

Your argument of "marketing and "world growth" project by LL" is somehow contradicted by reality — if you were correct, we would be seeing lots of self-governed sims everywhere. Clearly this was not part of LL's marketing project; they never supported any "self-government" projects (or they would have sponsored/supported further specific projects in that area), although naturally some Linden employees they find Neualtenburg "interesting". And the original contest was a "building contest"; the idea of self-government was something proposed by the group founders to make the proposal more interesting and different from other submissions.

Mind you, no project is "ultimately doomed to failure" just because others say so. The notion that everybody who dislikes concepts like Neualtenburg yells dramatically "the project is doomed! It's a failure! We have always said so!" is hilarious to watch. For over 18 months, we have watched people yell that for a while and quietly disappear from SL. I look forward to see in 2010 how many of the ones spelling doom for Neualtenburg today will still be around. Very likely, there will still be people in 2010 saying "now the project is doomed to fail! We have always predicted it!" Let me propose the opposite prediction: Neualtenburg will be around while Linden Lab is around But every year, there will be people predicting its doom; it's a running joke that provides fun and entertainment for the family.

So, you dont take drugs?
Unless you dont smoke, dont drink alcohol, and dont drink coffeeor tea, and take no prescription medicines you are a drug user.

Just about everyone is some sort of drug user Picabo.

Ulrika did not "accuse" you of being a drug user, she used a joking comment to denote she didnt see the logic in your post... note the smiley face at the end.

Some of the stuff people see as "personal attacks" is absolutely laughable.

Uh hm. This coming from one of the current leaders in N'berg who has, I believe, recently announced her own intention to "reinterpret" the N'berg Constitution to effectively stifle dissent there ---- while simultaneously holding a position which inherently requires that she "see" only the positives. (If I've mixed you up with someone else, sorry about that.) Interesting.

In any case, as I said, N'bergers and N'berg supporters' interpretation of what the facts actually ARE would be redefined from what I see them as. You just reinforced my argument. Thanks.

Let's get this clear. I am not anti-N'berg. I am anti-favoritism in SL by the Lindens. But so what?

This thread is illustrative of a program doomed to failure from its inception, IMO. Many predicted it so... it's just taken a while to reach this point. Personally, I see it as analogous to Cuba and Castro - neither has met its final demise, yet. But the writing's on the wall, just as it was when Castro and Chavez had their falling out. The current situation simply marks the curtain rising on the final act, I hope. The farce has to come to an end sometime. Why not now when the glaring flaws in the program are so clearly exposed?

((One of those flaws, the inability of LL to see that this thread has no business here... Hey, I never said N'bergers were the only ones "responsible" for the program's flaws.))

Add on that the co-founder is acting as lawyer for the defense and you have extra special
drama goodness.

We should sell movie rights.

Obviously you don't know me. You wouldn't have asked that question otherwise. No, I never have smoked (tobacco or other substances)nor drunk alcohol, and do not driink coffee or tea. The only drugs I have ever willingly taken were in hospital settings under prescriptions by licensed physicians. But that's not really any of your business now, is it?

Even were that not the cases, in the US, peyote is an illegal substance except for certain Native American tribesmen, I believe. Thus, not only was the accusation of being a drug user, the statement also implied I engage in illegal activities.

That you choose to view her comment as a joke is pointless. I, the target, view it otherwise and take it seriously. It has been reported via the bad ppost button, via IM to a Linden and is being reported via email to Customer Support and to Philip Linden. Yeah, I think it's serious enough for all of that.

I'd suggest valium rather than peyote.

Awww come on, Siggy — you know that it's what forum drama is all about! Pick a subject, concoct a tale, appeal to hidden desires and fantasies, or touch on people's tender subjects, and people will simply drool all over the place. That's the whole point of forum drama!

Why do people read the sensacionalistic press iRL anyway? Tabloids are a source of entertainment! Headlines are much more fun to read if they say "Girl Abducted by Aliens is Pregnant" than "Romano Prodi was elected prime-minister of Italy". There is a rather large market for sensacionalistic "news", made-up on the moment, while there is a tiny audience for facts.

There is no point in getting down to facts on sensacionalism. Facts only spoil the whole fun; who cares about them anyway? They're too boring. They make for long-winded posts no one reads about. But put a post on the forums something saying "Philip Linden Caught By Policeman Driving While Smoking Pot", and see how long the thread will go. People will still bump it in 2008 claiming "hey, I always knew that Philip was smoking something!!"

Enjoy the entertainment. Have fun. Rant a bit. See how people react to tabloidistic announcements. All is fair in the industry of entertainment! Don't let it get spoiled by the facts, they only get in the way.

Oh, and of course, like iRL, people can always claim they were just "entertaining the masses" if the facts tend to contradict reality. Parody, after all, is a well-established and valid entertainment form of the western societies — from Monty Python to Spitting Image — and nobody questions comediants about their right to provide entertainment to the masses. I certainly don't; I always look forward to more entertainment!

- Gwyn (naturally, a Monty Python fan )

Nahhh. I got a huuuuuge kick out of Sylvio getting crapped on.

Actually, you can. If you read the original thread, you are the one who brings up the term Terrorist, not N'Bergers:



then the only reference to terrorism, beyond your own, is one line:



in which the poster is simply extending YOUR comparison.

You then make a claim that you have been 'declared a terrorist', when a much more accurate description would be "I am a self-delcared" terrorist.

This is all amusing, except that when a guy as nice as Phoenix Psaltery posts a well thought out comment like:



you do the totally reprehensive thing, and dont' respond - you let somebody get very upset about a label that you APPLIED TO YOURSELF.

That's fucking bullshit, cowardly, and unethical.

/rant off

/ignore on (darn it, I can't put it on, as you're the moderator of some group, so I'll have to simply frown when I see your posts)

Hmmmm.... Put on my hip boots and waded through all the posts. Looks like different day, same suspect, same shit.

Although these threads do not mention abortion, age play, or the plummeting $L, they have about the same value.

The Beetlejuice incantation is not even necessary.

All one has to do is hang a mirror from a branch of the nearest tree and wait for a full moon.

Your selective quoting omits the fact that I was in fact banned for fear of removing property, that I made a "terrorist" statement in jest, that a person did in fact confirm that my words constitute "terrorism", that the ban was eventually reversed, and the person who called me a terrorist apologized. To summarize, the key point you're missing is that I used term "terrorist" facetiously in sarcastic jest, while the government official negated that jest and stated with authority that I was in fact a terrorist.

Here's the apology:
To summarize, what is important is when the word went from being applied as sarcastic humor by someone wrongly persecuted to a serious label applied by a government official. If I had somehow tricked this government official into using the term or drugged this government official or forged this government official's statement, then that would be, ahem, "fucking bullshit, cowardly, and unethical".

~Ulrika~

Terrorist is not quite the word for the situation.

But what word *should* be used to describe the facts, and only the facts?



I think a new word needs to be created for:

a) someone who was initially IN Neualtenburg

b) that same someone then kept OUT of Neualtenburg for whatever reason.


I propose the following term for everyone's lexical delight:

"IN-N'-OUT-Berger"