Surprised not to see...

[Aijah Qinan]

Your point may be valid in other gaming forums but it is misplaced in this forum.  You point is simply not relevant in Second Life because SL is a user created world.  It is not like most other gaming platforms were predominantly male designers create and control everything about the gaming platform thereby lending a semblance of credence to the mysoginistic criticism by feminists about how females are portrayed.

In Second LIfe users create the world.  There is no predominant group of male game designers creating content and forcing it on us.  We spend real money for the things we want and how WE want to be portrayed in SL.  It is therefore a more accurate reflection and depiction of the real world.  And if your assertion is correct in that it is a world predominantly populated by females, then we are supporting how we are being portrayed simply by being here and engaging in its existing content.  

Feminist don't speak for all of us.  Not all of us agree with the feminist agenda and many of us downright despise it just as much as males for similar or different reasons.  I, for one, don't care for it.  I am female and in no way, shape, or form do I feel the need to be equal to men, just as I am sure most men do not feel the need to be equal to females.  We are two different genders armed with different strengths and abilities.  And although our strenghts may differ, they are equal in terms of our contribution that makes this world go round. 

 

[Ceka Cianci]

I always looked at discuss as something like..your feelings on this,or ,any thought??

What do you think phil? Discuss.:matte-motes-agape::matte-motes-evil-invert::smileytongue:

*Ceka ducks  and covers giggling*:heart:

Juss kidding!! Don hit meh!

[Phil Deakins]

Your giggle at my expense deserves a good corrective spanking, young lady, and that's precidely what you'll get from me the next time I see you.

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Aijah Qinan wrote:

Your point may be valid in other gaming forums but it is misplaced in this forum.  You point is simply not relevant in Second Life because SL is a user created world.  It is not like most other gaming platforms were predominantly male designers create and control everything about the gaming platform thereby lending a semblance of credence to the mysoginistic criticism by feminists about how females are portrayed.

In Second LIfe users create the world.  There is no predominant group of male game designers creating content and forcing it on us.  We spend real money for the things we want and how WE want to be portrayed in SL.  It is therefore a more accurate reflection and depiction of the real world.  And if your assertion is correct in that it is a world predominantly populated by females, then we are supporting how we are being portrayed simply by being here and engaging in its existing content.  

Feminist don't speak for all of us.  Not all of us agree with the feminist agenda and many of us downright despise it just as much as males for similar or different reasons.  I, for one, don't care for it.  I am female and in no way, shape, or form do I feel the need to be equal to men, just as I am sure most men do not feel the need to be equal to females.  We are two different genders armed with different strengths and abilities. 

And although our strenghts may differ, they are equal in terms of our contribution that makes this world go round. 

 

---

So it's you women who are cracking the whips that make we men pour out our blood, sweat and tears making the world spin round, eh?

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

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.

---

You certainly have a point... though, in this case, I'm simply not sufficiently informed about gamergate to offer any deeper analysis than that which I already have.

 

---

Sy Beck wrote:

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

---

Oh no, you'd better shoot her an IM and give it to her directly... any love you throw my way, I'm keeping for myself. :matte-motes-wink-tongue:

...Dres

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

I came back here due to a necro-thread

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

discuss.

---

So you're basically hoping to troll the forum with an intentionally inflamatory remark about a public figure, after commenting about how you feel the women in SL exhibit the worst kinds of behavoir...

This seems solely intended for the purpose of creating hostile argument in the community...

/facepalm

We have our arguments here, often enough - when other topics slip into them or when they directly address an SL issue. We don't need topics that have no purpose other than to create flame wars and make whoever gets most upset look bad. There are other "SL" forums for that.

 

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

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)

---

Oh, I know you're not a RICer, but I suspect that's because you do indeed enjoy getting into a good argument from time to time.  Which is precisely why I find you to be one of the most interesting regulars still left here.

The problem stems from the ones who are so overly sensitive that they can't handle any sort of confrontation, no matter how insignificant, and would rather silence other people's opinions than defend their own.  And, of course, there was a while there when, I strongly suspect, there were a number of people, no longer participating here, who'd lurk with the intent to look for reasons to RIC anyone they didn't personally like, for whatever reason.

...Dres

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

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."

---

No, you weren't here, therefore you're in no real position to know how incredibly vibrant, active and interesting the GD forum was back then.  Did what you describe take place?... sure, but it was only a fraction of the activity taking place.  The thing is, there was no real moderation at the time, so things would get out of hand and there was no one there to pull it back into order.

Then came Lithium, and along with it, came overly draconian moderation.  It's like we went from the wild west to a prison cell, overnight.  At which point, a lot of people just didn't want to deal with it and left, while those of us who stayed tried to work with Amanda to make this a more community friendly environment.  And together we were somewhat successful... in that the moderation became much less restrictive and they actually allowed us to have a GD forum back.

Then the powers that be got rid of Amanda and stopped communicating entirely.  So now we're left with a moderation team that does whatever they want, without ever having to take responsibility for their sometimes incredibly questionable actions.  Hell, they don't even have to give you a reason for the posts they pull and the warnings they give.

Anything with even the hint of confrontation is subject to disappearing, whether the CG was violated or not.  And all because a couple of hyper-emotional idiots will inevitably take issue with someone's contradictory opinion and RIC their post.  It's as though the moderators act as if the very fact that a post was RICed by more than one person makes the violation valid, whether or not it actually is.

This is not the sort of atmosphere which inspires serious discussion... which is exactly why this forum is in such sad shape.  But, that's exactly the way LL wants it to be, so there's nothing anyone can really do about it at this point.

...Dres

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Sy Beck wrote:

I came back here due to a necro-thread

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

discuss.

---

So you're basically hoping to troll the forum with an intentionally inflamatory remark about a public figure, after commenting about how you feel the women in SL exhibit the worst kinds of behavoir...

This seems solely intended for the purpose of creating hostile argument in the community...

/facepalm

We have our arguments here, often enough - when other topics slip into them or when they directly address an SL issue. We don't need topics that have no purpose other than to create flame wars and make whoever gets most upset look bad. There are other "SL" forums for that.

 

---

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  You can't try to start a discussion here without someone accusing you of being a troll, just because they disagree with your opinion.

...Dres

[Ted McGregor]

Well .. seems to me the 'good old days' try to be back again .. :robotmad:

 

/me takes dibs on IBTL in advance .. :robotindifferent:

[Aijah Qinan]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Aijah Qinan wrote:

Your point may be valid in other gaming forums but it is misplaced in this forum.  You point is simply not relevant in Second Life because SL is a user created world.  It is not like most other gaming platforms were predominantly male designers create and control everything about the gaming platform thereby lending a semblance of credence to the mysoginistic criticism by feminists about how females are portrayed.

In Second LIfe users create the world.  There is no predominant group of male game designers creating content and forcing it on us.  We spend real money for the things we want and how WE want to be portrayed in SL.  It is therefore a more accurate reflection and depiction of the real world.  And if your assertion is correct in that it is a world predominantly populated by females, then we are supporting how we are being portrayed simply by being here and engaging in its existing content.  

Feminist don't speak for all of us.  Not all of us agree with the feminist agenda and many of us downright despise it just as much as males for similar or different reasons.  I, for one, don't care for it.  I am female and in no way, shape, or form do I feel the need to be equal to men, just as I am sure most men do not feel the need to be equal to females.  We are two different genders armed with different strengths and abilities. 

And although our strenghts may differ, they are equal in terms of our contribution that makes this world go round. 

 

---

So it's you women who are cracking the whips that make we men pour out our blood, sweat and tears making the world spin round, eh?

---

If we don't crack the whip, the work doesn't get done *smiles*

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

TDD123 wrote:

Well .. seems to me the 'good old days' try to be back again .. :robotmad:

---

I don't exactly know what you mean by this.  I've never been of a mind to refer to previous instances of this forum as the good old days.  Just because I find the quality of moderation here unsatisfactory, doesn't mean I wish to return to having none whatsoever.

...Dres

[Jandid Harcourt]

l love when people on the SL forums say SL isn't a video game and than they list reasons why it isn't, even though it clearly is.

[irihapeti]

i mostly get involved in gamergate discussion on other sites. I dont do on here mostly for the reason that has been raised already. That SL is a usergen world. That is actual ok that a player can parodise their own character as much as they like (or not) bc they have the tools to do (or not) as they choose

unlike in other games where I am not my own character of my own imagination. I am a character of someone elses imagination. Like a princess in the game for example

+

research

the research shows that a young girl imagining herself as a princess. A young boy imagining himself as a prince to save the princess. Has more to do with the presence and influence of their parent (the way that they have raised/taught them) than any other thing. That while their peers do also have a influence on them, that peer influence (in both young boys and girls) is a product of their parents influence and other adults

is quite interesting to see what children do choose for themselfs when their parent is unaware and unknowing and the child knows this also 

+

on the wider debate

i just put here something I said to another person on another site who said pretty much what you say here

people like Anita are the light shiners. They shine a light on a darkness in a industry. People like Anita do not change an industry. The industry changes itself. bc of the light shone on it

sometimes people in a industry that is in a darkness try to defend it to the death. Defend the industry itself as if a darkness practiced by some within defines the industry as a whole. Like for example:

garage workshops. Was a natural born right of mechanics to plaster the garage walls with pinups. Until it wasnt

building sites. Was a natural born right of construction workers to wolfhowl every lady who walk passed. Until it wasnt. Now when any dickhead do this then his own boss tell him to st*u

companies/employers of blue collar and trades people stamp out all this rubbish years ago in their workplaces. And stamp out the faux macho mindset that goes with

Faux macho: I am born a dude. I am horny bc dudes are horny. Is my natural state. I was just born that way. Is my natural born right to caricaturise every female I see whether they agree or not. bc natural

is getting stamped on this in the gamer industry as well now. If blue collar industries (many staff with little or no tertiary education) can grow up then so can those with far more education. Like game designers and progammers and their bosses

it isnt about the industry itself. It is about the faux macho. The good thing about the gamer industry is that it is growing up. Quite quickly as well. Light does that to people

[Aijah Qinan]

---

Jandid Harcourt wrote:

l love when people on the SL forums say SL isn't a video game and than they list reasons why it isn't, even though it clearly is.

---

I can't believe there are still people arguing that SL is a video game.

SL is no more a video game than facebook is a video game.  Second Life is a social media platform.  There is no winning or losing in SL.  While it is true that games can be created within the platform, the basis of SL is one of socialization and expression of creativity.

[Ted McGregor]

Since you ask me :

I suspect the OP did not fully intend to solely discuss gamergate eleborately, but probes for presences reminiscent to him of former forum days. The fewer responses to that, the less interest will take towards the original subject at hand.

I admit I might as well  be wrong about that. We'll see how the thread evolves.

This repeating sentiment over former forum-participation seems an invitation to repeat a sequence of posts which will eventually, again, result in suspension of those posting who prefer pep-talk causing wrinkles in storms of drinks.

Repeat of such sentiment will of course also result in comments by those who wish to do without. I think it's indicative I'm not the only one in this thread with the same attitude to be happy to forfeit such repeats.

We can't discuss the quality of moderation without the risk of certain moderation. You know that.

It also cannot reasonably be expected otherwise from a company which sells you a gaming environment where moral sometimes seems as incontrollable as gun-control ( referring to the Wild West here ), because of the freedom of expression many enjoy ; either inworld or here. The forums are an immediate window for them to the outside world.

And to me .. whatever has been RIC in these forums, and in this GD particularly, was hardly worth saving for posterity anyway.Hardly anything posted in here is and will be. Goes twice for my own posts.

Certainly not to me. I expect from Lindenlab nothing else.

I hope I explained myself better to you.

 

 ETA : Notwithingstanding having enjoyed many posts here by just as many contributors. Yours included.

ETA2 Extra edits.

[Magnus Brody]

I used to post a lot in the forums, and made many lovely friends from my active time.

However, I really got sick and tired of the amount of trolling, threats, insecure look-at-me, faux SLebrity, Forum Stars in their own mind, and those with a keyboard to hammer their view out on, rather than a monitor to read others, etc, etc.

After a couple of years of regularly posting here, then almost three years very rarely posting, do I miss it?

No.

[Dillon Levenque]

---

TDD123 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.

 

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.

---

 

I've been away since I first posted in this thread. I should not, in fact, have posted at all. There was no need and I should not have injected 'acrimony' of my own into the conversation.  I just (as has been mentioned elsewhere) have a very aggressive response to someone saying 'discuss'. Most of us would ask something like, "What do you think about this?". Also, the OP is someone I don't care for (I think that started when he invoked Niemoller* in a thread on the Feed regarding the forum ban of one of his buddies, as if SL were a frikking state) and it hasn't gotten any better since. I don't care for people who act as though their (perceived) intelligence somehow makes them superior.

As I said, I should not have posted. I let my irritation get the best of me. My apologies.

As to my saying there's no reason to bring the gamergate discussion here, your interpretation of my reasoning is exactly correct. I've waded through a great many twitter, 8chan, and reddit threads that I frankly wish I'd never seen.

 

* The umlaut over the 'o' is not permitted in this community, apparently. I vaguely remember that being mentioned elsewhere. In any case there should have been one above the 'o' in Niemoller.

[irihapeti]

is good to take a break now and again. otherwise can easy end up with lots of faux inner turmoils. Can do your head it that can. fauxness (:

3 years is a long time. Most I been away is about 15 months. 8 months the last time. Never lurk either. When go then go and not ever wonder. Or let myself care about it either

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

TDD123 wrote:

Since you ask me :

I suspect the OP did not fully intend to solely discuss gamergate eleborately, but probes for presences reminiscent to him of former forum days. The fewer responses to that, the less interest will take towards the original subject at hand.

I admit I might as well  be wrong about that. We'll see how the thread evolves.

This repeating sentiment over former forum-participation seems an invitation to repeat a sequence of posts which will eventually, again, result in suspension of those posting who prefer pep-talk causing wrinkles in storms of drinks.

Repeat of such sentiment will of course also result in comments by those who wish to do without. I think it's indicative I'm not the only one in this thread with the same attitude to be happy to forfeit such repeats.

We can't discuss the quality of moderation without the risk of certain moderation. You know that.

It also cannot reasonably be expected otherwise from a company which sells you a gaming environment where moral sometimes seems as incontrollable as gun-control ( referring to the Wild West here ), because of the freedom of expression many enjoy ; either inworld or here. The forums are an immediate window for them to the outside world.

And to me .. whatever has been RIC in these forums, and in this GD particularly, was hardly worth saving for posterity anyway.Hardly anything posted in here is and will be. Goes twice for my own posts.

Certainly not to me. I expect from Lindenlab nothing else.

I hope I explained myself better to you.

 

 ETA : Notwithingstanding having enjoyed many posts here by just as many contributors. Yours included.

ETA2 Extra edits.

---

Thank you for the explanation.  The reason I didn't understand your previous statement was because I didn't think I saw anyone say they wanted the supposed good old days back, at least in this thread.  A little reminiscing perhaps, a bit of commentary on the state of this forum as compared to then... sure, but that's about it.

It was actually Theresa who originally brought up the supposed good old days for which she wasn't around.  At which point, I simply tried to point out that her vision of what the supposed good old days might have been was only a portion of what it actually was and to give a bit of history about what brought us here from there.

Nevertheless, as we seem to agree, it matters not.  LL have the forum they want and no wishing on any mere, forum participant's part is going to change that.

...Dres

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

TDD123 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.

 

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.

---

 

I've been away since I first posted in this thread. I should not, in fact, have posted at all. There was no need and I should not have injected 'acrimony' of my own into the conversation.  I just (as has been mentioned elsewhere) have a very aggressive response to someone saying 'discuss'. Most of us would ask something like, "What do you think about this?". Also, the OP is someone I don't care for (I think that started when he invoked Niemoller* in a thread on the Feed regarding the forum ban of one of his buddies, as if SL were a frikking state) and it hasn't gotten any better since. I don't care for people who act as though their (perceived) intelligence somehow makes them superior.

As I said, I should not have posted. I let my irritation get the best of me. My apologies.

As to my saying there's no reason to bring the gamergate discussion here, your interpretation of my reasoning is exactly correct. I've waded through a great many twitter, 8chan, and reddit threads that I frankly wish I'd never seen.

 

* The umlaut over the 'o' is not permitted in this community, apparently. I vaguely remember that being mentioned elsewhere. In any case there should have been one above the 'o' in Niemoller.

---

I must comment you for offering an apology, even though I'm unsure of whom exactly you're apologizing to... perhaps yourself?  I certainly do understand how difficult it can sometimes be to reply to the post and not the poster.

...Dres

[Syo Emerald]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

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.

---

I haven't been in this thread for a while, but let me just say a quick look at the last pages just showed what I said to you so early on. In the "loosest sense" simply doesn't cut the core to make it a relevant subject here. Your word picking means nothing.

Oh, and of course I have been active enough to have a feeling for the majority here. I do not speak for them (never said that, that is complete your imagination), but I know in what direction their opinions go, because I've seen them in other  situations. And thats why all those pages here are essentially a discussion about you, rather than about the topic you so dearly wanted to see a discussion about.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

I've been away since I first posted in this thread. I should not, in fact, have posted at all. There was no need and I should not have injected 'acrimony' of my own into the conversation.  I just (as has been mentioned elsewhere) have a very aggressive response to someone saying 'discuss'.

---

There's no need to apologise for that. As you've seen, you are not the only one who reacts to the instruction "discuss", and I wrote my comments about it before I read yours. To my way of thinking, it's tantamount to a rudeness, and it gets right up my nose. It's the sort of thing that a teacher in authority might say to students, and not the sort of attitude a stanger coming in from the street should adopt.

[Perrie Juran]

I've been trying to get around to responding to this thread for a couple of days and now feel kind of late to the party. I kind of dislike threads that are tring to cover two separate topics because they can become confusing to follow.  Also I wanted to take a little time to look at Gamergate.   I was aware of it but didn't want to post about something I really knew nothing about.  Also, my first thought when I read the OP was that someone was trolling to pull Scylla out of the woodworks where ever she may be hiding right now.  It wouldn't be the first time it happenned.  Right now, for this post, I'm going to stick to the current state of the Forum.

This Forum is exactly what (past) Management of Linden Lab wanted it to be.  Still other factors came in.  There was a Similar Thread related to this topic recently.  Quoting my own self from there I wrote:

"You are right, the old Forum was livelier.  But if you think back a lot of those updates were ongoing flame wars.  Some people could not post anything with out getting attacked.  There was really no moderation.  And it could get very tedious to try and discuss anything because the fights and disagreements took over the threads.  It was like the Hatfields and McCoys. 

On the other side now in this Forum we do have moderation.  My opinion is while it was needed it is too heavy handed.  Some people get their panties in a wad way too easy and are too fast on the RIC button.

Both extremes kill discussion.

And then we could add to this people who want to rule over this Forum.  They could be the worst thing that happens here but what can we do about it?  Add to this what do we do about people who post truly idiotic things.  How about the entitlement Generation who think LL or the Merchants or the Land Lords owe them something?  It sadly can all be very problematic."

I'd like to see things loosen up here.  I'd like for us to be able to discuss Adult topics without having to resort to PG language. 

When we had the 'Welcome Ebbe Thread' I said to him after we got his attention here (he was posting over in SLU), "Doesn't it seem odd that so many SL discussions are happening over there ratther than in Second Life's Forum."  Either he missed my point or he danced around it.  His reply, paraphrasing here, was, "I'm going to go where I have an audience."

[Ceka Cianci]

Wow,That's a name i haven't heard in a long time..

Scylla.

I think the last time i seen her was at the first hippystock hehehe