Mainland Sim Full: Who Is To Blame?

No; once again you are wrong. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle deals exclusively with particle location versus momentum. Yet more fail from you.



An assertion that I didn't sleep last night does not require (or solicit) any action on your part. If this thread had been started with the claim that "I went shopping yesterday and found some clothes I liked and some clothes I didn't", there would be no issue.

This thread started off with a -conflict-, a complaint against a certain group of people, and a call to action. The complaint explicitly stated that some people were right about a specific issue, and other people were wrong. It was not some casual mention of the previous day's meals, or a poetic take on someone's favorite fiction. It was an allegation. Allegations need to be supported. You're quite insistent that all these allegations you seem to think I'm making need to be supported, but it seems to sail right over your head that the first person to make an unsupported allegation in this thread was Lias.



It crossed my mind, indeed; but it is just as likely that it was introduced LATER because it was an excuse that was not needed earlier, and was only invented when it became necessary. Two equally-valid scenarios.



Call it a bandwagon if you will. You've simply divided people into those who agree with Lias and those who don't.



"Only theories" - again, like gravity is "only a theory", and the germ theory of medicine is "only a theory". Yes, it's true that someday, it may be found that viruses and bacteria do not, in fact, cause illness - even though we've directly observed that they do, have observed HOW they cause illness at every stage from introduction to infection. But the probability of such being disproved is very close to zero. You're using science's lack of dogmatic declaration as an excuse to attack the certainty of something you don't agree with. Everything in science is theoretically falsifiable (indeed, an unfalsifiable claim is rejected out of hand); but something being falsifiable in no wise indicates that it cannot be trusted.



I find it marvellously curious how you can give all kinds of reasons why you would personally lean towards Lias being right, and yet insist that "I'm not saying that it's true or not"; meanwhile, I can give countless reasons why I would personally lean toward Lias being incorrect, and this automatically means I'm making - how did you put it - "implicit accusations". Very curious indeed.

An allegation that hasn't been proven is not actionable. Lias says "Those people are bad", but I'm NOT going to start judging those people as bad if I can't see them being bad (or their badness hasn't been proven to me in some other way). It's unfair to the accused.

I wasn't calling Lias a "liar", I was making fun of your assertion that there is "obviously" some secret group plotting to control traffic numbers in Bear. Or do you consider yourself a proxy of Lias now?

The group is not secret. They even stand at the bikini shop to increase the traffic there so my claims that they traffic for the parcels around the infohub are adversely effected because of their excessive loitering in the infohub won't be true. Your really understimating the behaviors of mobs (see yellow trimmed picture in my signature). I am just upping my game and fighting back appropriately.

Then you should have made that clear in the post, or is it a hastily invented excuse, the like of which you suggested Lias made? As it was, your sarcasm virtually called Lias a liar.

/me watches, waits, and hopes for cabbits

/me hopes her cat pees on this thread next.

I like this

Heisenberg may have formulated it exclusively with velocity and location, but the Uncertainty Principle is applied to much more than those properties. However, that would be going somewhat further than this discussion merits, since my mentioning quantum theory was obviously tongue in cheek - I mentioned measuring the numbers of avs - nothing to do with particles.

Wrong (again). There was no call to action in the first post, so no actions were necessary on your part. There was a question, that you could have answered, but you didn't. You really didn't read the thread, did you? I should read it if I were you. You might get a better grasp of what it's about.

The first post explicity ASKED who is to blame. Like I said - read it - you know it makes sense

Why was it just as likely? That's not equally valid at all. What I suggested is far more likely, as it's the normal flow of discussion. Besides, if it was equally valid in your opinion, why didn't you include it? You're just making a quickly "invented" excuse for your negativity.

I hope not. My intention was to point out that all of the accusations are unfounded, and are mere imaginations. In this thread, I saw one person with a problem. Someone quickly stated that the person is trolling (the one who stated it doesn't understand the word "troll". From then on, many people jumped on that negative aspect, and treated Lias as somehow being in the wrong. They didn't have any evidence of it, so they made accusations, such as "liar", "scammer", etc. It was a bandwagon effect, and it was deplorable. It's nothing new to this forum, but it's nonetheless deplorable.

I know nothing of germ theory, but gravity isn't a theory - I didn't say it is. But things about gravity are theoretical - the graviton particle, for instance. It's never been detected, and is just a mathematical theory. Furthermore, nobody has yet discovered how gravity actually works, but the fact that gravity exists isn't theoretical.

You are not understanding. It's perfectly clear. I don't know whether Lias has been totally honest or not. I do lean towards it though, because it has a ring of truth about it. The two are not mutually exclusive. You certainly can give whatever reasons you like about disbelieving Lias, but, since you don't know one way or the other, you should not be making accusations, even in sarcasm. It's the unjustified accusations that I find fault with, and you are unable to justify any.

Absolutely. No argument from me about that. You'll only get arguments from me when you make unfounded accusations. Notice that I haven't accused anyone of anything. The closest I came to it was saying that I do not believe one of the hub crowd when he denieed something, but I also added that I don't *know* if he is telling the truth or not.

Don't worry. Dakota and I are boring this thread into submission

Cabbits?

/me points in the direction of a certain resmod

(Venturing once more into the fray, reluctantly...) It's possible that this is in fact the underlying misunderstanding from which all this stems. Whereas tier is important to LL's bottom-line, how it chooses to maximize revenue is largely at its discretion.

For example, the grant of tier, to the extent it might have any legal standing at all, is actually not to a specific parcel, but the right to "own" a certain amount of virtual "land." There is nothing in the ToS or CS to prevent LL from exercising the virtual equivalent of "eminent domain" and moving resident-owned parcels from one grid location to another, any time it sees fit. Of course as a matter of policy they don't make this a common practice--it would erode the "land ownership" illusion--but it's an option open to them (and, incidentally, one that may yet prove useful in further managing the adfarm mess on the Mainland).

So, if LL judges new user retention--a current high priority--to take precedence over tier payments on some parcel, they have every right to take whatever policy steps they choose. If they judge that a situation is going to cost them more by creating a hostile environment for future tier-payers than the revenue it generates from current tier payments it would just be good business for them to address the situation accordingly.

Depending on that assessment, LL might choose to move the InfoHub from Bear, as is apparently the desired course of action, or reduce "camping" capacity of landowners, or even something as drastic as moving landowners' parcels to another location. Or they may do nothing at all, which was probably the best option at least up until the current visual griefing of InfoHub visitors by adjacent landowners.

Thanks.

I agree they are leaning toward doing nothing. I am not sure why they feel these resource wasting parcels should take precedence over tier paying residents. As I said before, I belive the Lindens are just stuck on stupid. They made a bad decision to erect these places without the manpower to maintain them, then they abandoned them to the mobs and want the landowners surrounding them to deal with it and support them by paying tier.

I am not sure what we are doing is visual griefing. We are just doing what we always wanted to do with that parcel. I am not sure why a gun range bought on Slexchange that does not create physical prim bullets is griefing. Just as you see no griefing in the same people converging in large groups on the infohub almost everyday. I say they are griefing me by deliberatly over using the resources. You do not agree. I know each one probably thinks "I cannot control who comes here and hangs out with me". Eventually we have over 30 people hanging out there thinking the same thing. But if they can take a little more responsibility for the situation they can work with the mob to address the issue - and not let this continue as it is.

My understanding:-

Ugly builds are not griefing, unless they are made to interfere with someone; e.g. huge walls of flashing colors.

Hanging out in large numbers is not griefing.

Shouting obsenities, insults, and the like, is not griefing - it's vulgar and/or confrontational.

Orbiting, caging, and similar, is griefing when done against the wishes of the victim.

Self-replicating objects, and similar, is griefing when done to disrupt a sim.


In other words, physical attacks of various kinds are griefing. Other things are not.

I hadn't really noticed this before yesterday, but check out James Gills profile. When James was still an active member of sl he was very well known and very well liked because of his kind heart and all of the work he did for the good of the sl community like his involvement with the arbor project. One of his profile pics is Bear where he calls it his home and talks about what a great place it is except for the asshole neighbors.

And Phil I'm not at all ashamed of what I did. My friend held a short event. I went to the event and reminded everyone of the event in the forums I use. I sat talked to a few friends, had fun listened to music. The only issue there was, was Ryan Radio coming over to be rude and start fights. No one really argued back with him or got upset like he wanted but he did try very hard. Theres no wrong doing with sitting in a public place with a few friends. And even with the event being advertised in 4 places, the sim was no where near full like Lias claims is her big problem. Me and several other people keep popping in at random times during the day. The most people that have been in the sim at any given time aside from the event was 8. 8 People. Usually closer to 4-6 people, and a few of those are bots. What Lias and Ryan are doing, is making this situation so ridiculous that it could hurt the chance of help in the high traffic high problem info hubs like Ahern and others that really need it. Just pop into the sim a few times a day, and look for yourself. That is the tamest hub I've been to. The people are nice. If the problem was like she claimed in the first place, and if she had not done so many nasty things to the people maybe people would have been more sympathetic to her. Maybe there was a problem a year ago, but if you go to the sim now its very obvious that there no longer is an issue other than the 2 of them walking over to start fights. Your welcome to believe her, or anyone else you'd like to. I'm going to go by my several personal experiences at the hub, my experiences with Ryan, and James gills profile because I have a lot of trust in him.

It did get crowded earlier when they started the reboots with people porting home. but even then the max count was like 25 people in the sim.

It's odd that you're the only who has disagreed with my description of the 'event' - that it was an attempt to fill the sim, which it was. The fact that you're not ashamed just speaks about you. If in your heart, it was just an event that had nothing whatsoever to do with an attempt at filling the sim, because of this thread, then you were very naive. Heck, the thing was announced in *this* thread, and you were whipping up support for it in *this* thread. I'm sure you will understand that I don't swallow your explanation of the 'event'.

If you've been reading this thread at all, since you tried to encourage people to the 'event', you'll know that I don't need to visit the place (although I have done once), because I've had the map on my screen for hours more than once. I know the numbers that the sim gets, and the numbers in the hub. I've seen the sim in excess of 30, and I've seen it in excess of 20 many times during the course of this thread. There are 28 in the sim right now, and all but 3 are in the hub.

And I've seen it drop to 4 in the sim counting me at times.

Many right now are running for the restarts and waiting for the all clear on them being finished so they port home.

I understand that quoting your post, and only your post, in my response may have confused you as to whom my response was directed. In the future, I shall endeavor to make it more clear who I am addressing.

_______

DISCLAIMER: The above post was addressed to the poster whom it directly quotes; namely, the SL forum poster known as "Phil Deakins". This post is NOT addressed to other SL forum posters who are not named "Phil Deakins"; other people named "Phil Deakins", but whom do not post on the SL forum; other people named "Phil Deakins" who DO post on the SL forum, but using a name other than "Phil Deakins"; other people who may or may not post on the SL forum, who once met a guy at Denver International Airport named "Bill Sleekens"; dogs, cats, ferrets, and aquarium fish (freshwater or tropical) that are named "Phil Deakins"; or ancient Egyptian mummies. This post represents the sole opinion of its author; Linden Lab(TM), its affiliates and subsidiaries, and its employees are not responsible for the content of this post. This post is not intended to be the basis of a medical diagnosis or treatment, or of a legal opinion or brief. All terms subject to credit approval; not all buyers will qualify. Contest ends December 13, 2008; no purchase necessary. Further, making a purchase does not guarantee a better chance of winning. See store for details. Today's show is brought to you by the letter "Q" and the number "8"; and is a production of Children's Television Workshop. Funding provided by the National Education Council, and Viewers Like You.

It's going to be an infohub for a long time, live with it or use your feet and give the land to someone who wants it for more than drama creation.

There is only one uncertainty principle. It is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Well that's not completely true - there are slight variations OF Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. But, like the HUP, all of them apply specifically to quantum mechanics. There is no "general Uncertainty Principle" which applies to anything larger than the subatomic scale. You really need to give this train up - constantly pwning you over this was fun at first, but now it is starting to make me feel like a bully.



The necessary action is making a judgement - about people I don't know, upon the insistence of a person I don't know.



No, the title included the words "who is to blame". The OP, however, made it clear who we're supposed to THINK is to blame.



It is equally valid, because the amount of evidence supporting each assertion is exactly the same.



So, it IS possible to be certain of something after all?



Of course I haven't been able to "justify" any of my accusations, because I haven't made any accusations to justify. Except in your opinion, where mere disbelief seems to be synonymous with an accusation of lying. I'm not particularly sorry if my sarcasm has hurt your feelings in any way; sarcasm is an old, recognized, and legitimate form of communication that you're going to have to learn to live with every now and then.



What about the as-yet unfounded accusation that Bear is being rendered constantly unusable, except when people are purposefully trying to make it look like it's not?

Let's introduce a new gadget. CAUTION: EDGES ARE SHARP! It's called Occam's Razor. Which is the explanation which creates the least number of variables: 1) "there is no trouble in Bear", or 2) "there is trouble in Bear, but a cabal of ill-intentioned bad guys is conspiring to make it LOOK like there's no trouble in Bear"?

You missed
3) there is nothing in Bear, just an infohub, eternal drama and one poor bikini shop.

Ah but you see, it was obvious who you were addressing (I said that before, and I actually responded to the), and it was also clear *who* you were talking about (I said that before too). Your memory and sarcasm need a little excercise to bring them up to par

Well, if there's an infohub, eternal drama, and one bikini shop in Bear, we can't include the word "nothing" though.