Surprised not to see...

[Sy Beck]

I came back here due to a necro-thread, which within it lamented the passing of many notable contributors to this forum.  This is after all a General Discussion forum and was fought hard for to be retained when past forum changes were made.  It now seems it should more aptly be named a "help" forum rather than a space for wide ranging discussion, which it was hoped to be.

Given SL is an online gaming mmo (in its loosest sense) community and this is a general discussion forum and the majority of SL residents are women I was somewhat surprised to see that #gamergate has not been raised even once in all the posts here.   It's a subject that is certainly raging all over the internet and within the gaming community, but here in SL, where one could arguably assert that the worst of female submissive and male expectation tropes are exhibited and even sold, it has not been raised as a topic of conversation/debate once.

For my part I think Anita Sarkeesian is an extorting self-righteous pseudo, actually no a fake, feminist who has willingly or unwillingly found a way to garner money and sympathy from a confused cohort of people and media to start an argument that she is in no way educationally or practically qualified to be a leading commentator on and that what she and others are doing is actually divise and causing a counterweight to equality and progress... discuss.

[Syo Emerald]

It hasn't because...

a) We don't (or at least the majority here) identify as gamers or at least not SL as a game, which would be needed to feel that this is the place to discuss something like gamergate here.

b) The people who like to have loaded, endless discussions about political and social things have their well established home over at SLuniverse and to be honest, I'm glad we don't have this type of topics here. Its far more relaxing and I prefer to read about strictly SL related topics anyway. I have my whole RL to think and worry about the bitterness and violence of the world.

[Sy Beck]

Wow, lucky me that I found someone so soon who can talk for the majority and completely missed that I cached my words in the "loosest sense" when talking about SL being a game.

[Ceka Cianci]

I noticed that a lot of stuff doesn't get mentioned in here anymore...

I was sure when Robbin Wiliams passed on, there would have been something in here for sure..

Not a peep..

It's pretty much just SL things that i ever see when i look in..

Maybe they get moved by mods or something,i don't know..

 

 

[Sy Beck]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

I noticed that a lot of stuff doesn't get mentioned in here anymore...

I was sure when Robbin Wiliams passed on, there would have been something in here for sure..

Not a peep..

It's pretty much just SL things that i ever see when i look in..

Maybe they get moved by mods or something,i don't know..

 

 

---

Pretty much seems to be The Stepford forum nowadays :smileywink:

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

I noticed that a lot of stuff doesn't get mentioned in here anymore...

I was sure when Robbin Wiliams passed on, there would have been something in here for sure..

Not a peep..

It's pretty much just SL things that i ever see when i look in..

Maybe they get moved by mods or something,i don't know..

 

 

---

Pretty much seems to be The Stepford forum nowadays :smileywink:

---

I really think when they split the forums up so much into so many sections it really melowed them out a lot..

Kind of like divide and conquer..

The slightest thing  OT and it gets moved somewhere else..

 

[Dillon Levenque]

I think many of us are aware of the gamergate garbagefest. I certainly am. There are other forums in which it's a topic of frequent discussion.

There's really no reason to bring it up here, because to us it's irrelevant and talking about it can achieve nothing but acrimony. We don't care what game developers, gamers, or game journalists do. It's nothing to us. We ARE the 'game', each of us. That's my theory, anyway.

I really wanted to ignore you, because you ended your post with '....discuss', like you were some kind of schoolteacher or taskmaster. Who the h**l are you to be saying, "discuss"? We are neither your students nor your audience.  I decided to respond anyway. For my part I think Anita Sarkeesian is pretty much on the level, although possibly surprised at the groundswell of support she's received. I also think your punctuation in that third paragraph needs a whole lot of work. It starts out fairly well, but starts to get jumbled after the first line.

 

[Ceka Cianci]

I don't even really know what gamergate is myself..

I've had time to pop into a few forums lately  here and there but not really in any worlds..

Mostly been working and riding trying to get in the last of this good weather we have here for it, before the cold wet season starts up..

trying to keep my politics on the low end of things pretty much..

It's real easy to get a full plate real fast, on the net..

hehehe

 

[Dresden Ceriano]

Hey Sy... lovely to see you again, my friend.

 

---

Sy Beck wrote:

I came back here due to a necro-thread, which within it lamented the passing of many notable contributors to this forum.  This is after all a General Discussion forum and was fought hard for to be retained when past forum changes were made.  It now seems it should more aptly be named a "help" forum rather than a space for wide ranging discussion, which it was hoped to be.

---

It's my belief that a lot of very interesting participants were either driven away or banned from this forum due to inconsistent, sometimes draconian, sometimes, utterly incoherent moderation.  I could go on and on about this but will refrain from doing so, because, you see, I've pretty much been beaten into submission.  It's gotten to the point that helping people is about the only thing I feel comfortable doing here without having to worry when and from where my next warning will come (I've pretty much given up on why).

 

---

Sy Beck wrote:

Given SL is an online gaming mmo (in its loosest sense) community and this is a general discussion forum and the majority of SL residents are women I was somewhat surprised to see that #gamergate has not been raised even once in all the posts here.   It's a subject that is certainly raging all over the internet and within the gaming community, but here in SL, where one could arguably assert that the worst of female submissive and male expectation tropes are exhibited and even sold, it has not been raised as a topic of conversation/debate once.

---

As I understand it, GamerGate is about institutionalized sexism within the gaming industry.  Since pretty much everything in SL (and certainly anything that might be considered sexist) is user generated, the sexism on display here can't really be considered institutionalized.  Therefore... well, I speak only for myself when I say that I hold little interest in discussing it.

As a gay man, though I do realize that it's certainly significant to the world in which I exist, I often feel as if I'm relegated to watching the battle of the sexes from the sidelines.  Which makes it less likely that I would ever feel as if I've something significant to add to the conversation.

Nevertheless, I will say that the ugly, misogynistic reaction of the male gamers who've attacked Anita and those who share her view, only serve to fortify her position.  They're not really doing themselves any favors by behaving so.

...Dres

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

I came back here due to a necro-thread, which within it lamented the passing of many notable contributors to this forum.  This is after all a General Discussion forum and was fought hard for to be retained when past forum changes were made.  It now seems it should more aptly be named a "help" forum rather than a space for wide ranging discussion, which it was hoped to be.

Given SL is an online gaming mmo (in its loosest sense) community and this is a general discussion forum and the majority of SL residents are women I was somewhat surprised to see that #gamergate has not been raised even once in all the posts here.   It's a subject that is certainly raging all over the internet and within the gaming community, but here in SL, where one could arguably assert that the worst of female submissive and male expectation tropes are exhibited and even sold, it has not been raised as a topic of conversation/debate once.

For my part I think Anita Sarkeesian is an extorting self-righteous pseudo, actually no a fake, feminist who has willingly or unwillingly found a way to garner money and sympathy from a confused cohort of people and media to start an argument that she is in no way educationally or practically qualified to be a leading commentator on and that what she and others are doing is actually divise and causing a counterweight to equality and progress...

discuss.

---

No! If you want to discuss it (whatever it is) you discuss it. Don't instruct others to discuss it.

Note: When someone makes a statement and ends it with the instruction "discuss", it gets right up my nose. It looks to me like they just want to sit back and watch other people discussing something they are interested in. That single word mean means 'you discuss'. If you're interested in discussing it you should say something like 'let's discuss it', which includes you. As it is, what you wrote means that you don't want to join the discussion, but you do want to watch some guinea pigs discussing it.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

It's my belief that a lot of very interesting participants were either driven away or banned from this forum due to inconsistent, sometimes draconian, sometimes, utterly incoherent moderation.  I could go on and on about this but will refrain from doing so, because, you see,

I've pretty much been beaten into submission

.  It's gotten to the point that helping people is about the only thing I feel comfortable doing here without having to worry when and from where my next warning will come (I've pretty much given up on why).

---

What??? That's so very disappointing. No wonder the forum doesn't hold the interest for me that it once did.

(FWIW, I've never RICed any of your posts. On the whole, I'm not an RICer. Someone has to post something really bad before I'm tempted to RIC a post and, even then, I usually don't)

[Sy Beck]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

I think many of us are aware of the gamergate garbagefest. I certainly am. There are other forums in which it's a topic of frequent discussion.

There's really no reason to bring it up here, because to us it's irrelevant

and talking about it can achieve nothing but acrimony. We don't care what game developers, gamers, or game journalists do. It's nothing to us. We ARE the 'game', each of us. That's my theory, anyway.

 

---

So I can't say discuss, but you feel free to decide what is an appropriate thread here?  I invite discussion, you wish to passively censor it, interesting.  Why is it irrelevant to you?  You don't live inside a bubble.  That's akin to believing that the rich shouldn't have a concern for the poor because they are irrelevant to them; a wholly specious argument.

 

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

For my part I think Anita Sarkeesian is

pretty much on the level,

although possibly surprised at the groundswell of support she's received. 

 

---

So she's been proven a liar and a charlatan, has taken tens of thousands of dollars from people to conduct "research" which to date so far has produced not one paper, but has consisted of her idly quoting other like-minded people's blog as if they were peer reviewed scientific research.  Meanwhile, the one person who has conducted proper scientific research into this subject (who happens too to be a woman, but that's neither here nor there) and has published academic papers and been peer reviewed has refuted Sarkeesian's claims that female tropes in gaming lead to male misogyny.  Yet you think that's pretty much on the level?

Meanwhile an honest attempt by the gaming community at cleaning up the corruption within the gaming industry has been hijacked by a cohort of feminists and social justice warriors claiming some spurious oppression and are aided and abetted by games journalists and developers who are happy to jump on their bandwagon as a diversion from the spotlight that was being shone on them and their nefarious practises.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

So I can't say discuss, but you feel free to decide what is an appropriate thread here?  I invite discussion, you wish to passively censor it, interesting.  Why is it irrelevant to you?  You don't live inside a bubble.  That's akin to believing that the rich shouldn't have a concern for the poor because they are irrelevant to them; a wholly specious argument.

---

Dillon didn't decide what threads are appropriate here. It was the way you wrote the the word 'discuss' (while you sit back and watch the discussion). I can't speak for everyone in the forum, but, on the whole, we don't take orders like that from people. As I said in my previous post, if you want to discuss something, by all means do it, but don't tell others to do it. That's what set you off on the wrong foot.

I do know that using the word 'discuss' in that way is not uncommon, but I also know that it's very inappropriate in a forum.

[Ted McGregor]

---

Sy Beck wrote :

So I can't say discuss, but you feel free to decide what is an appropriate thread here?  I invite discussion, you wish to passively censor it, interesting.  Why is it irrelevant to you?  You don't live inside a bubble.  That's akin to believing that the rich shouldn't have a concern for the poor because they are irrelevant to them; a wholly specious argument.

 

This is not 4chan or Reddit where these discussions are common and, as gamergate proves, run out of hand too quickly before anyone can say 'Stop this nonsense !'.

I think that is meant by Dillon.  If she did mean that, I concur.

[Sy Beck]

Lovely to see you again and so much of you too!

 

Would entirely agree with you re. the moderation.  It has turned what used to be a wonderful arena of wide ranging thought and discussion and the occasional humorous distraction into a vapid, uninteresting help forum, which no doubt is extrememly useful in itself so better to re label the forum or abolish it.  I think at a quick count last night only 3 of the 25 top posts were anything that could called be General Discussion.

 

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

As I understand it, GamerGate is about institutionalized sexism within the gaming industry.  Since pretty much everything in SL (and certainly anything that might be considered sexist) is user generated, the sexism on display here can't really be considered institutionalized.  Therefore... well, I speak only for myself when I say that I hold little interest in discussing it.

As a gay man, though I do realize that it's certainly significant to the world in which I exist, I often feel as if I'm relegated to watching the battle of the sexes from the sidelines.  Which makes it less likely that I would ever feel as if I've something significant to add to the conversation.

Nevertheless, I will say that the ugly, misogynistic reaction of the male gamers who've attacked Anita and those who share her view, only serve to fortify her position.  They're not really doing themselves any favors by behaving so.

...Dres

---

Nonsense, that's bubble thinking.  It is often the observer who can clearly see the whole picture that can give the most informed and unbiased analysis, which you have done in your conclusion.  The preposterous propositions of Sarkeesian and her vehement supporters have incited some truly ugly misogynists to break cover and spew forth their ignorant hate.  Meanwhile an honest endeavour to clear up an actual problem gets lost and coopted by both extremities to suit their own ends.

Hope to see you soon and give my love to Grimmy.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

Would entirely agree with you re. the moderation.  It has turned what used to be a wonderful arena of wide ranging thought and discussion and the occasional humorous distraction into a vapid, uninteresting help forum, which no doubt is extrememly useful in itself so better to re label the forum or abolish it.  I think at a quick count last night only 3 of the 25 top posts were anything that could called be General Discussion.

---

I ought to have commented on this when you mentioned it earlier.

If this GD forum appears to be a help forum, then it's entirely to do with its users, and nothing at all to do with the moderators. People can discuss pretty much anything here. You are doing it yourself with this thread. So there is no need to rename or remove it. It is exactly what the users of it make it.

[Sy Beck]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Sy Beck wrote:

So I can't say discuss, but you feel free to decide what is an appropriate thread here?  I invite discussion, you wish to passively censor it, interesting.  Why is it irrelevant to you?  You don't live inside a bubble.  That's akin to believing that the rich shouldn't have a concern for the poor because they are irrelevant to them; a wholly specious argument.

---

Dillon didn't decide what threads are appropriate here. It was the way you wrote the the word 'discuss' (while you sit back and watch the discussion). I can't speak for everyone in the forum, but, on the whole, we don't take orders like that from people. As I said in my previous post, if you want to discuss something, by all means do it, but don't tell others to do it. That's what set you off on the wrong foot.

I do know that using the word 'discuss' in that way is not uncommon, but I also know that it's very inappropriate in a forum.

---

I think by my post and subsequent replies that I am clearly "discussing it" as opposed to those who seem to post that they don't want to post and that they don't want to discuss the topic either rather than not posting and moving on.

[Sy Beck]

Please can you provide a list of acceptable topics that are allowable under the term of "General Discussion" that have not been covered anywhere else in any media so that I might meet your exacting editorial demands.

[Ted McGregor]

No : I can't and I won't.

 

You were 'surprised'.

 

I supplied a possible, although for you not preferable, answer.

 

Take it or leave it.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Sy Beck wrote:

So I can't say discuss, but you feel free to decide what is an appropriate thread here?  I invite discussion, you wish to passively censor it, interesting.  Why is it irrelevant to you?  You don't live inside a bubble.  That's akin to believing that the rich shouldn't have a concern for the poor because they are irrelevant to them; a wholly specious argument.

---

Dillon didn't decide what threads are appropriate here. It was the way you wrote the the word 'discuss' (while you sit back and watch the discussion). I can't speak for everyone in the forum, but, on the whole, we don't take orders like that from people. As I said in my previous post, if you want to discuss something, by all means do it, but don't tell others to do it. That's what set you off on the wrong foot.

I do know that using the word 'discuss' in that way is not uncommon, but I also know that it's very inappropriate in a forum.

---

I think by my post and subsequent replies that I am clearly "discussing it"

as opposed to those who seem to post that they don't want to post and that they don't want to discuss the topic either rather than not posting and moving on.

---

You weren't when we posted about your 'discuss' instruction to us.

You do have a point there, but you set off on the wrong foot by giving us an instruction to discuss it. At least you did with more than just me.

[Coby Foden]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

 

It has turned what used to be a wonderful arena of wide ranging thought and discussion and the occasional humorous distraction into a vapid, uninteresting help forum, which no doubt is extrememly useful in itself so better to re label the forum or abolish it.  I think at a quick count last night only 3 of the 25 top posts were anything that could called be General Discussion.

---

Linden Lab forums at present lack real General Discussion Forum. What the present forum is, is this (look at the forum's description line):

Obviously Linden Lab planned it to be for general Second Life discussion.

Anyway, we often do discuss here about matters which have nothing to do with Second Life at all; because Linden Lab did not provide any other more suitable forum for those discussions.

[Sy Beck]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I ought to have commented on this when you mentioned it earlier.

If this GD forum appears to be a help forum, then it's entirely to do with its users, and nothing at all to do with the moderators. People can discuss pretty much anything here. You are doing it yourself with this thread. So there is no need to rename or remove it. It is exactly what the users of it make it.

---

Evidently wrong.  I could name a whole host of people who used to contribute significantly to this forum who have either moved on because of the moderation and them not being able to express themselves freely or have left SL for something else.  What's left is the remainder who predominantly use it as a help forum rather than as a General Discussion forum, which I am ambivalent to, but if it walks like a duck ect.....

 

Anyway, my son is tugging me away to go assist him in the rescue of that iconic female trope Princess Daisy, which is probably I fear going to turn him into a gorilla hater more than a misogynist.

[Ted McGregor]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

Anyway, my son is tugging me away to go assist him in the rescue of that iconic female trope Princess Daisy, which is probably I fear going to turn him into a gorilla hater more than a misogynist.

---

You could try and explain to your kid where this all came from ( and bore it beyond fun in gameplay ) by blaming thís 'ye olde ape'.

 

Or  just watch him enjoying the game.

 

Have fun .. :robotwink:

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I ought to have commented on this when you mentioned it earlier.

If this GD forum appears to be a help forum, then it's entirely to do with its users, and nothing at all to do with the moderators. People can discuss pretty much anything here. You are doing it yourself with this thread. So there is no need to rename or remove it. It is exactly what the users of it make it.

---

Evidently wrong.  I could name a whole host of people who used to contribute significantly to this forum who have either moved on because of the moderation and them not being able to express themselves freely or have left SL for something else.  What's left is the remainder who predominantly use it as a help forum rather than as a General Discussion forum, which I am ambivalent to, but

if it walks like a duck

ect.....

---

Not evidently wrong at all. People do leave for various reasons, but not because of the topics they want to discuss. Your duck analogy is very wrong. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and cannot be anything other than a duck, then, and only then, is it a duck. In this case, you've misunderstood the forum because it certainly can be, and is, something other than the duck you want to see. This very thread, and other current ones, should tell you that - if you really want to see, that is

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I ought to have commented on this when you mentioned it earlier.

If this GD forum appears to be a help forum, then it's entirely to do with its users, and nothing at all to do with the moderators. People can discuss pretty much anything here. You are doing it yourself with this thread. So there is no need to rename or remove it. It is exactly what the users of it make it.

---

Evidently wrong.  I could name a whole host of people who used to contribute significantly to this forum who have either moved on because of the moderation and them not being able to express themselves freely or have left SL for something else.  What's left is the remainder who predominantly use it as a help forum rather than as a General Discussion forum, which I am ambivalent to, but

if it walks like a duck

ect.....

 

Anyway, my son is tugging me away to go assist him in the rescue of that iconic female trope Princess Daisy, which is probably I fear going to turn him into a gorilla hater more than a misogynist.

---

I wasn't here during the "good old days", but from what I've seen of the aging "rock stars" of that era the "discussion" was the equivalent of holding a treat over the head of a little dog, thereby making it jump, snap and yap so intently that you can lead it all around the room until you eventually cause it to fall down a flight of stairs. I'm sure it was entertaining for the one holding the treat and the dog participated because that's the way dogs roll, but for everyone else it was probably, "Yeah, yeah, same old Youtube video from three years ago."