Can Second Life be even considered a "Game"?

[Nalytha]

Actually... I'm veering us way off topic into a zone that is inappropriate for this forum. So I retract my question and will refrain from further religious inquiry. 

(Please don't judge me too harshly, I am fascinated by theological discussion. I forget sometimes that it has a time and place, however)

[Pamela Galli]

---

Nalytha wrote:

Actually... I'm veering us way off topic into a zone that is inappropriate for this forum. So I retract my question and will refrain from further religious inquiry. 

 

(Please don't judge me too harshly, I am fascinated by theological discussion. I forget sometimes that it has a time and place, however)

---

We dont care much about being off topic in GD. But I am not very interested in this discussion as I have had it elsewhere ad nauseum. :-)

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

 Bringing this up once again is beating a dead horse.  Gamers will

never

convince non gamers that SL is a game and non gamers will

never

convince gamers that it isn't. 

To me it's simple.  SL is a virtual world where you can play games, BUT YOU DON"T ALWAYS. 

What I and  many of us do in the virtual world is not a game. For those that say we all play characters, I disagree. I am my RL self in SL and

my avatar is just that, a representation of myself in world.

Those of us like myself don't 'play' SL.

 

---

Why do you have a representation of yourself in a virtual world?

---

 

Obviously to meet and interact with other people I couldn't otherwise and to create things on this creative platform.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Nalytha wrote:

<snip>

 

 I am fascinated by theological discussion.

</snip>

---

I'm not sure if God gets more amused or irritated by them.

Probably the latter.

[Pamela Galli]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Nalytha wrote:

<snip>

 

 I am fascinated by theological discussion.

</snip>

---

I'm not sure if God gets more amused or irritated by them.

Probably the latter.

---

Probably bored.:smileytongue:

[Pamela Galli]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

 Bringing this up once again is beating a dead horse.  Gamers will

never

convince non gamers that SL is a game and non gamers will

never

convince gamers that it isn't. 

To me it's simple.  SL is a virtual world where you can play games, BUT YOU DON"T ALWAYS. 

What I and  many of us do in the virtual world is not a game. For those that say we all play characters, I disagree. I am my RL self in SL and

my avatar is just that, a representation of myself in world.

Those of us like myself don't 'play' SL.

 

---

Why do you have a representation of yourself in a virtual world?

---

 

Obviously to meet and interact with other people I couldn't otherwise and to create things on this creative platform.

---

I do find the idea of having a cube for an avatar appealing. Maybe with a smilie face. 

[Pamela Galli]

But to answer your question, of course not.

[wherorangi]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I enjoy arguing. But I only argue when I'm right, which necessarily means that those who oppose my arguments must be wrong

 

---

well !! i dont mean to point out something, but I will (:

you do have a lot of silver cups at the mo. At least two anyways that I know about. One of which you pinched off me. But thats ok bc I have got a gold cup and I am happy to let you be happy with your silvers

q; (:

[Ilithios Liebknecht]

---

... I am always able to prove my points ...

... (that's self-evident) ...

---

That's pretty funny. It's rare to see someone claim something and then inadvertently disprove their own statement in the very next sentence. It's especially funny when that person thinks they're good at debate.

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Pamela, I am not aware of any evidence supporting the existence of God

---

We had a long thread some years ago, which I'm sure you participated in. In it, it was described how the very existance (universe) we know points very clearly to someone or something causing it to come into existance. So the universe itself is evidence of a creator.

[Phil Deakins]

I'm in green

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm in red.

I'm in blue.

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Nalytha wrote:

Even if it's not a game, exactly what is wrong with the word play? It's been pointed out that that word is very versatile. I play music. I play movies. I play Second Life.

---

But do you play Facebook? Play Google, or eBay? Can you play email, or play WhatsApp?

What is it about Second Life that makes you think that you

play

it? The only other online services that people 'play' are (

looking at Google results

) gambling, sports or gaming related. Seems likely that 'play' is associated therefore with online

gaming

services.

Think verb usage is important, and probably part of what leads to the cloudiness in making this determination. Non-technical types often make this mistake and, because they aren't corrected on the terminology, the misinformation spreads. Has always been the double-edged sword in SL - technical knowledge is low across the userbase as a whole.

(Not that I think this misinformation really matters. People have been getting it wrong for a long time, and it hasn't mattered.)

---

Facebook, Google, and eBay aren't

simulations

of anything. 

Wow! You got something right. Very well done!

Phil maintains that is a world, "just like Earth"

which is what it is.

How and why

is it just like the earth?

If you haven't noticed that they both have land and water surfaces, then I don't know what I can say, except repeat what I've said before; i.e. they are both worlds and are like each other. One is real and the other is virtual. Let's try it this way. Take a picture oif the open coutryside in the real world. Then take a picture of the open countryside in SL. See if you can spot how alike they are

Any idiot knows that

,

We'll see shortly, won't we? 

We already did.

but it's a

created

world 

just like the Earth

-

a

simulacrum.

If Second Life is just like the Earth, what does the Earth simulate? 

Nothing that I know of. Didn't you notice that my comment was

before

your word "simulacrum"? lol. 

Everything that happens in Second Life technically runs on a

simulator.

Phil makes "furniture" for this virtual world, but there's no

need

for furniture in this world. 

There's no need for anything in the SL world.

Since Second Life is "just like the Earth", doesn't this mean that "any idiot knows" there's no need for anything on Earth either? 

Well you seem to know it, so it must be right

That's assuming that there actually

isn't

any need for anything in the Second Life world -  now what would happen in Second Life if the simulators stopped running? Doesn't the "world"

need

them to be running?

Before you tie yourself in too many knots for you to handle, I think I'd better help you a bit here. SL and the world are like each other. We both agree that that's what I said. But did I say they are identical to each other in every way? Did I? Of course not. So I'll let you off the hook and just ignore all the little things you point out about SL being just like the Earth in that they are both worlds, that you hope will disprove what you

thought

I'd said

"

Furniture" exists in Second Life only as a simulation of real-world furniture. The word "play" is often used for running simulations.

Quite possibly. You could even say that LL plays SL when they run the simulation - like playing a film or video. What you can't accurately say is the user, such as you and me, plays it. Make make use of the simulation that LL is playing, but we ourselves don't play it.

The server simulation - the only thing that happens on LL hardware - has no graphics or sound. We see graphics and sound on our computers. If we're not "playing" anything, where is that coming from? 

Does it matter where it comes from? Does it have any relevance to this discussion? Perhaps you are trying to show why SL is not like the Earth in that respect. Is that it? If that's it, then you need to go back and read what I actually said, and not argue about something that I certainly didn't say. In case it's still unclear to you, I'll refresh your memory. I said that SL and the earch are alike, or words to that effect. What I didn't say is that they are alike in every detailed respect.

You're tying yourself up in knots

There's a lot of that going around.

Then stop doing it.

Incidentally, simulations can be considered games - when the military simulates a hypothetical military campaign it's called "wargaming" even though it's done for literally life-and-death reasons of strategic planning.

Wargames ARE games. They are done for the reason you stated but they are games. And they are not simulations.

Why not? Don't they simulate a battle?

They are models - like lead soldiers

Why isn't a model a simulation? Doesn't it simulate something else?

Not really, no. The pieces are like chess or draughts pieces in that they are moved by the participants (players) to try and win. They are games. Bigger than chess and draughts, but games none the less. If you want call them simulations, you can, but they are no more simulations than a map is a simulation. You can dig your hole even deeper and call a map a simulation if you like lol.

We've established that the word "play" is used for many actions, including actions that are extremely similar to the act of interacting with Second Life.

We have established that the word 'play' is used for a number of actions, and also similar things to SL, such as WoW (because it's a game).

Why would the word "play"

not

be used?

Because it's not a game. It's also not a musical instrument, a film/video, a record (music), etc. etc. Having said that, you can use whatever verb you like, but don't be surprised if/when people correct you on it

Right now, the only one still arguing that is you.

That's because I'm the only one who is enjoying arguing the toss with you, even though we all know that you are enjoying writing silly stuff that you know doesn't hold up, just for the sake of it

---

You really are arguing just for the sake of, aren't you?

Any idiot knows that.

True.

---

 

---

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I enjoy arguing. But I only argue when I'm right, which necessarily means that those who oppose my arguments must be wrong

 

---

well !! i dont mean to point out something, but I will (:

you do have a lot of silver cups at the mo. At least two anyways that I know about. One of which you pinched off me. But thats ok bc I have got a gold cup and I am happy to let you be happy with your silvers

q; (:

---

Don't get too complacent. It's only a matter of time before the gold cup becomes mine. And you can't defend against it in the meantime

[Phil Deakins]

---

Ilithios Liebknecht wrote:

---

... I am always able to prove my points ...

... (that's self-evident) ...

---

That's pretty funny. It's rare to see someone claim something and then inadvertently disprove their own statement in the very next sentence. It's especially funny when that person thinks they're good at debate.

---

You mean because me saying that it's self-evident that SL is not a game proves that I'm not always able to prove my points? That's the only understanding I can come up with from what you wrote. If that's what you meant, you haven't understood it at all. Saying that something is self-evident is not offering a proof. For the  proof, you need to go back and read the whole discussion. In other words, I didn't offer "self-evident" as proof of anything. I proved it in earlier posts and threads.

I'm glad you think it's funny though. Your lack of understanding when you made your judgement certainly got a big smile from me. Perhaps you need to learn the basics of good debating before taking on masters in the art   I'm reminded of something an old regular here posted in the other forum, when someone from there decided to take me on over here. She suggested he didn't try it. She told him that I will wipe the floor with him without breaking a sweat. Words to the effect of 'wipe the floor', anyway. I was so proud

 

And whilst I'm writing a post, I'll point out that I'm not always right in my posts. I argue when I'm right, if people want to argue, because I can prove it. At other times, I discuss and debate, and I'm open to being persuaded one way or the other. At still more time, I start out by saying something like, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but...". But when I believe I'm right, I am right, and I'll enjoy the argument. In other words, I'm pretty much just like everyone else, with the possible exception that I will continue longer than most people, because I'm usually enjoying it.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm in green

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm in red.

I'm in blue.

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Nalytha wrote:

Even if it's not a game, exactly what is wrong with the word play? It's been pointed out that that word is very versatile. I play music. I play movies. I play Second Life.

 

---

But do you play Facebook? Play Google, or eBay? Can you play email, or play WhatsApp?

What is it about Second Life that makes you think that you

play

it? The only other online services that people 'play' are (

looking at Google results

) gambling, sports or gaming related. Seems likely that 'play' is associated therefore with online

gaming

services.

Think verb usage is important, and probably part of what leads to the cloudiness in making this determination. Non-technical types often make this mistake and, because they aren't corrected on the terminology, the misinformation spreads. Has always been the double-edged sword in SL - technical knowledge is low across the userbase as a whole.

(Not that I think this misinformation really matters. People have been getting it wrong for a long time, and it hasn't mattered.)

---

Facebook, Google, and eBay aren't

simulations

of anything. 

Wow! You got something right. Very well done!

Phil maintains that is a world, "just like Earth"

which is what it is.

How and why

is it just like the earth?

If you haven't noticed that they both have land and water surfaces, then I don't know what I can say, except repeat what I've said before; i.e. they are both worlds and are like each other. One is real and the other is virtual. Let's try it this way. Take a picture oif the open coutryside in the real world. Then take a picture of the open countryside in SL. See if you can spot how alike they are

Those qualities are also at least as present in World of Warcraft, which you have repeatedly said is a "game", "unlike" Second Life.

Any idiot knows that

,

We'll see shortly, won't we? 

We already did.

but it's a

created

world 

just like the Earth

-

a

simulacrum.

If Second Life is just like the Earth, what does the Earth simulate? 

Nothing that I know of. Didn't you notice that my comment was

before

your word "simulacrum"? lol. 

Everything that happens in Second Life technically runs on a

simulator.

Phil makes "furniture" for this virtual world, but there's no

need

for furniture in this world. 

There's no need for anything in the SL world.

Since Second Life is "just like the Earth", doesn't this mean that "any idiot knows" there's no need for anything on Earth either? 

Well you seem to know it, so it must be right

That's assuming that there actually

isn't

any need for anything in the Second Life world -  now what would happen in Second Life if the simulators stopped running? Doesn't the "world"

need

them to be running?

Before you tie yourself in too many knots for you to handle, I think I'd better help you a bit here. SL and the world are like each other.  We both agree that that's what I said.

That

wasn't

what you said earlier - you said it was "

just

like the earth." If I quoted you and took out or added a word that could even possibly change the meaning of what you said you'd throw a conniption fit and say that I was deliberately misquoting you.

But did I say they are identical to each other in every way? Did I? Of course not.

You said they were "just like" each other. Just in this usage would mean "only", or "just alike and therefore not significantly unlike."

So I'll let you off the hook and just ignore all the little things you point out about SL being just like the Earth in that they are both worlds, that you hope will disprove what you

thought

I'd said

Of course you'll ignore them - because if those few similarities are all that make Second Life a "world" and not a "game" then there are other applications that you yourself consider "games" that anyone could say the same thing about.

"

Furniture" exists in Second Life only as a simulation of real-world furniture. The word "play" is often used for running simulations.

Quite possibly. You could even say that LL plays SL when they run the simulation - like playing a film or video. What you can't accurately say is the user, such as you and me, plays it. Make make use of the simulation that LL is playing, but we ourselves don't play it.

The server simulation - the only thing that happens on LL hardware - has no graphics or sound. We see graphics and sound on our computers. If we're not "playing" anything, where is that coming from? 

Does it matter where it comes from? Does it have any relevance to this discussion?

Yes, because you just said that a simulation could be played, and that Second Life is a simulation, but

we're

not playing it; only Linden Lab is. If our computers are doing as much work as Linden Labs when we access the simulation (and they are) then your argument fails

.  Perhaps you are trying to show why SL is not like the Earth in that respect. Is that it? If that's it, then you need to go back and read what I actually said, and not argue about something that I certainly didn't say. In case it's still unclear to you, I'll refresh your memory. I said that SL and the earch are alike, or words to that effect. What I didn't say is that they are alike in every detailed respect.

You're tying yourself up in knots

There's a lot of that going around.

Then stop doing it.

Incidentally, simulations can be considered games - when the military simulates a hypothetical military campaign it's called "wargaming" even though it's done for literally life-and-death reasons of strategic planning.

Wargames ARE games. They are done for the reason you stated but they are games. And they are not simulations.

Why not? Don't they simulate a battle?

They are models - like lead soldiers

Why isn't a model a simulation? Doesn't it simulate something else?

Not really, no. The pieces are like chess or draughts pieces in that they are moved by the participants (players) to try and win. They are games. Bigger than chess and draughts, but games none the less. If you want call them simulations, you can, but they are no more simulations than a map is a simulation. You can dig your hole even deeper and call a map a simulation if you like lol.

Dictionary definition that would apply: "Simulation - the

representation

of

the

behavior

or

characteristics

of

one

system

through

the

use

of

another

system,

especially

a

computer

program

designed

for

the

purpose." That's exactly what maps, models and Second Life do.

We've established that the word "play" is used for many actions, including actions that are extremely similar to the act of interacting with Second Life.

We have established that the word 'play' is used for a number of actions, and also similar things to SL, such as WoW (because it's a game).

Which also has all the qualities of a world that you cite Second Life having, despite WoW being a "game" and Second Life being "not a game".

Why would the word "play"

not

be used?

Because it's not a game. It's also not a musical instrument, a film/video, a record (music), etc. etc. Having said that, you can use whatever verb you like, but don't be surprised if/when people correct you on it

Right now, the only one still arguing that is you.

That's because I'm the only one who is enjoying arguing the toss with you, even though we all know that you are enjoying writing silly stuff that you know doesn't hold up, just for the sake of it

It seems to be a popular hobby around here.

---

You really are arguing just for the sake of, aren't you?

Any idiot knows that.

True.

---

 

---

 

---

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

---

Pamela, I am not aware of any evidence supporting the existence of God, and I don't think it's possible to prove the non-existance of anything (though there are some who claim it can be done).

 

---

There is more than one concept that is described by the word God and we need to know what one you're talking about. You can say, "I am not aware of any evidence supporting the existence of Peter Pan" and be on firm ground if you're only referring to an actual ageless boy who flies through a window, but someone standing in a bookstore, grocery store peanut butter aisle or New England bus station can show you abundant evidence as to the existence of other uses of the name "Peter Pan."

[Ilithios Liebknecht]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

---

You mean because me saying that it's self-evident that SL is not a game proves that I'm not always able to prove my points? That's the only understanding I can come up with from what you wrote. If that's what you meant, you haven't understood it at all. Saying that something is self-evident is not offering a proof. For the  proof, you need to go back and read the whole discussion. In other words, I didn't offer "self-evident" as proof of anything. I proved it in earlier posts and threads.

I'm glad you think it's funny though. Your lack of understanding when you made your judgement certainly got a big smile from me. Perhaps you need to learn the basics of good debating before taking on masters in the art

  I'm reminded of something an old regular here posted in the other forum, when someone from there decided to take me on over here. She suggested he didn't try it. She told him that I will wipe the floor with him without breaking a sweat. Words to the effect of 'wipe the floor', anyway. I was so proud

 

And whilst I'm writing a post, I'll point out that I'm not always right in my posts. I argue when I'm right, if people want to argue, because I can prove it. At other times, I discuss and debate, and I'm open to being persuaded one way or the other. At still more time, I start out by saying something like, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but...". But when I believe I'm right, I am right, and I'll enjoy the argument. In other words, I'm pretty much just like everyone else, with the possible exception that I will continue longer than most people, because I'm usually enjoying it.

---

With such a glowing review by Something of an Old Regular Here, you have to be quite a master debater indeed. I have only been reading the forums a short time and have unfortunately thus far only come across debates you have lost, such as this thread in which Theresa has "wiped the floor" with you. I do greatly look forward to seeing you in fine form once you recover from what must be a rare slump.

[wherorangi]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I enjoy arguing. But I only argue when I'm right, which necessarily means that those who oppose my arguments must be wrong

 

---

well !! i dont mean to point out something, but I will (:

you do have a lot of silver cups at the mo. At least two anyways that I know about. One of which you pinched off me. But thats ok bc I have got a gold cup and I am happy to let you be happy with your silvers

q; (:

---

Don't get too complacent. It's only a matter of time before the gold cup becomes mine. And you can't defend against it in the meantime

---

i am not complacent. I am just bathing in my golden glow q; (:

ps. i wont have another go until I do get pushed off. Just so that one day hopefully you will come know what it is that only I know (:

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Ilithios Liebknecht wrote:

With such a glowing review by Something of an Old Regular Here, you have to be quite a master debater indeed. I have only been reading the forums a short time and have unfortunately thus far only come across debates you have lost, such as this thread in which Theresa has "wiped the floor" with you. I do greatly look forward to seeing you in fine form once you recover from what must be a rare slump.

---

You seem to have a problem with english. If you take english lesson, and then re-read the threads I've been in since you started looking in the forum, you may well discover the truth - that I haven't lost a debate in your time here. Unlike you, of course. You are losing this one in real time, for instance lol. And Theresa? Well, she';s losing hands down, even though she's only debating for the sake of it, and by throwing silly things in that hold no water at all. She (and I) are having fun.

But do keep trying. I enjoy watching someone squirming

[wherorangi]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Pamela, I am not aware of any evidence supporting the existence of God

---

We had a long thread some years ago, which I'm sure you participated in. In it, it was described how the very existance (universe) we know points very clearly to someone or something causing it to come into existance. So the universe itself is evidence of a creator.

---

was that the one that pose the question: What is at the edge of the universe ? 

was pretty interesting that one

[Phil Deakins]

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I enjoy arguing. But I only argue when I'm right, which necessarily means that those who oppose my arguments must be wrong

 

---

well !! i dont mean to point out something, but I will (:

you do have a lot of silver cups at the mo. At least two anyways that I know about. One of which you pinched off me. But thats ok bc I have got a gold cup and I am happy to let you be happy with your silvers

q; (:

---

Don't get too complacent. It's only a matter of time before the gold cup becomes mine. And you can't defend against it in the meantime

---

i am not complacent. I am just bathing in my golden glow q; (:

ps. i wont have another go until I do get pushed off. Just so that one day hopefully you will come know what it is that only I know (:

---

You and Hugsy, if you mean what it's like to hold the gold cup. But Hugsy took forever to get where he got. I haven't looked just now but I think I'm the fastest one by a long way. Not that that wins anything

[Phil Deakins]

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Pamela, I am not aware of any evidence supporting the existence of God

---

We had a long thread some years ago, which I'm sure you participated in. In it, it was described how the very existance (universe) we know points very clearly to someone or something causing it to come into existance. So the universe itself is evidence of a creator.

---

was that the one that pose the question: What is at the edge of the universe ? 

was pretty interesting that one

---

Yes, I think it was that one. It was a very good thread.

[wherorangi]

another one I really enjoyed, was one where me and Maddy end up chatting in a side convo about the influence/impact of the Easter Bunny on our lives. Even when nobody has actual ever seen the Easter Bunny. In the sense: Can we know the Easter Bunny thru its wonders bestowed ?

was pretty interesting as well

 

[wherorangi]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I enjoy arguing. But I only argue when I'm right, which necessarily means that those who oppose my arguments must be wrong

 

---

well !! i dont mean to point out something, but I will (:

you do have a lot of silver cups at the mo. At least two anyways that I know about. One of which you pinched off me. But thats ok bc I have got a gold cup and I am happy to let you be happy with your silvers

q; (:

---

Don't get too complacent. It's only a matter of time before the gold cup becomes mine. And you can't defend against it in the meantime

---

i am not complacent. I am just bathing in my golden glow q; (:

ps. i wont have another go until I do get pushed off. Just so that one day hopefully you will come know what it is that only I know (:

---

You and Hugsy, if you mean what it's like to hold the gold cup. But Hugsy took forever to get where he got. I haven't looked just now but I think I'm the fastest one by a long way. Not that that wins anything

---

yes. I was really slow as well. I had to wait for nearly half an hour in the Blake Sea for the next sims to come up. Same halfway the last continent on the road. Just had sit and wait. And then again at the end of road. Spent ages camming between there and Bounce trying to work out how I was going to get there

also was 2 of the red hearts sims blocking the Bounce sim which took another age to work out how I was going to get past them given that they both had insta-death orbs at the time. Dunno if they are still there, but if so then I let you work it out for yourself when you get there

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm in green

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm in red.

I'm in blue.

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Nalytha wrote:

Even if it's not a game, exactly what is wrong with the word play? It's been pointed out that that word is very versatile. I play music. I play movies. I play Second Life.

 

---

But do you play Facebook? Play Google, or eBay? Can you play email, or play WhatsApp?

What is it about Second Life that makes you think that you

play

it? The only other online services that people 'play' are (

looking at Google results

) gambling, sports or gaming related. Seems likely that 'play' is associated therefore with online

gaming

services.

Think verb usage is important, and probably part of what leads to the cloudiness in making this determination. Non-technical types often make this mistake and, because they aren't corrected on the terminology, the misinformation spreads. Has always been the double-edged sword in SL - technical knowledge is low across the userbase as a whole.

(Not that I think this misinformation really matters. People have been getting it wrong for a long time, and it hasn't mattered.)

---

Facebook, Google, and eBay aren't

simulations

of anything. 

Wow! You got something right. Very well done!

Phil maintains that is a world, "just like Earth"

which is what it is.

How and why

is it just like the earth?

If you haven't noticed that they both have land and water surfaces, then I don't know what I can say, except repeat what I've said before; i.e. they are both worlds and are like each other. One is real and the other is virtual. Let's try it this way. Take a picture oif the open coutryside in the real world. Then take a picture of the open countryside in SL. See if you can spot how alike they are

Those qualities are also at least as present in World of Warcraft, which you have repeatedly said is a "game", "unlike" Second Life. 

Yes, WoW is a game and, yes, it has those similarities. But, unlike SL, it has goals to achieve, etc. and that's what makes it a game and SL not a game.

Any idiot knows that

,

We'll see shortly, won't we? 

We already did.

but it's a

created

world 

just like the Earth

-

a

simulacrum.

If Second Life is just like the Earth, what does the Earth simulate? 

Nothing that I know of. Didn't you notice that my comment was

before

your word "simulacrum"? lol. 

Everything that happens in Second Life technically runs on a

simulator.

Phil makes "furniture" for this virtual world, but there's no

need

for furniture in this world. 

There's no need for anything in the SL world.

Since Second Life is "just like the Earth", doesn't this mean that "any idiot knows" there's no need for anything on Earth either? 

Well you seem to know it, so it must be right

That's assuming that there actually

isn't

any need for anything in the Second Life world -  now what would happen in Second Life if the simulators stopped running? Doesn't the "world"

need

them to be running?

Before you tie yourself in too many knots for you to handle, I think I'd better help you a bit here. SL and the world are like each other.  We both agree that that's what I said.

That

wasn't

what you said earlier - you said it was "

just

like the earth." 

And just like the Earth, SL is a world. That doesn't mean in every little respect. I actually stated one respect in which they are different - one is real and the other is virtual.

If I quoted you and took out or added a word that could even possibly change the meaning of what you said you'd throw a conniption fit and say that I was deliberately misquoting you. 

No I wouldn't. You would be misquoting me by leaving bits out, which is what you've done, but I wouldn't throw a fit. I'd merely point it out so you could see how wrong you were.

But did I say they are identical to each other in every way? Did I? Of course not.

You said they were "just like" each other. Just in this usage would mean "only", or "just alike and therefore not significantly unlike." 

Your own interpretation of the word just? lol. You need to show me the post whee I said it, and I'll explain that part of english to you

So I'll let you off the hook and just ignore all the little things you point out about SL being just like the Earth in that they are both worlds, that you hope will disprove what you

thought

I'd said

Of course you'll ignore them - because if those few similarities are all that make Second Life a "world" and not a "game" then there are other applications that you yourself consider "games" that anyone could say the same thing about.

Such as? It's no good saying these things without anything to back them up. If someone says that this is just like that, it really doesn't mean that they are the same in every way. I thought you would have realised that, but apparently not.

"

Furniture" exists in Second Life only as a simulation of real-world furniture. The word "play" is often used for running simulations.

Quite possibly. You could even say that LL plays SL when they run the simulation - like playing a film or video. What you can't accurately say is the user, such as you and me, plays it. Make make use of the simulation that LL is playing, but we ourselves don't play it.

The server simulation - the only thing that happens on LL hardware - has no graphics or sound. We see graphics and sound on our computers. If we're not "playing" anything, where is that coming from? 

Does it matter where it comes from? Does it have any relevance to this discussion?

Yes, because you just said that a simulation could be played, and that Second Life is a simulation, but

we're

not playing it; only Linden Lab is. If our computers are doing as much work as Linden Labs when we access the simulation (and they are) then your argument fails

.

Au contraire. Just because a simulation can be played doesn't mean that all simulations, therefore, can be played. Try again

  Perhaps you are trying to show why SL is not like the Earth in that respect. Is that it? If that's it, then you need to go back and read what I actually said, and not argue about something that I certainly didn't say. In case it's still unclear to you, I'll refresh your memory. I said that SL and the earch are alike, or words to that effect. What I didn't say is that they are alike in every detailed respect.

You're tying yourself up in knots

There's a lot of that going around.

Then stop doing it.

Incidentally, simulations can be considered games - when the military simulates a hypothetical military campaign it's called "wargaming" even though it's done for literally life-and-death reasons of strategic planning.

Wargames ARE games. They are done for the reason you stated but they are games. And they are not simulations.

Why not? Don't they simulate a battle?

They are models - like lead soldiers

Why isn't a model a simulation? Doesn't it simulate something else?

Not really, no. The pieces are like chess or draughts pieces in that they are moved by the participants (players) to try and win. They are games. Bigger than chess and draughts, but games none the less. If you want call them simulations, you can, but they are no more simulations than a map is a simulation. You can dig your hole even deeper and call a map a simulation if you like lol.

Dictionary definition that would apply: "Simulation - the

representation

of

the

behavior

or

characteristics

of

one

system

through

the

use

of

another

system,

especially

a

computer

program

designed

for

the

purpose." That's exactly what maps, models and Second Life do. 

But it doesn't say that using them is playing them

We've established that the word "play" is used for many actions, including actions that are extremely similar to the act of interacting with Second Life.

We have established that the word 'play' is used for a number of actions, and also similar things to SL, such as WoW (because it's a game).

Which also has all the qualities of a world that you cite Second Life having,

no I didn't. Saying something is like something does

not

mean that it has "

all the qualities

" of it. For instance, you are like me. You have some of the same qualities - 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. - but we don't have all the same qualities, but I like to see a master of squirming in action, so do continue

despite WoW being a "game" and Second Life being "not a game".

Why would the word "play"

not

be used?

Because it's not a game. It's also not a musical instrument, a film/video, a record (music), etc. etc. Having said that, you can use whatever verb you like, but don't be surprised if/when people correct you on it

Right now, the only one still arguing that is you.

That's because I'm the only one who is enjoying arguing the toss with you, even though we all know that you are enjoying writing silly stuff that you know doesn't hold up, just for the sake of it

It seems to be a popular hobby around here.

You should know lol.

---

You really are arguing just for the sake of, aren't you?

Any idiot knows that.

True.

---

 

---

 

---

 

---

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I enjoy arguing. But I only argue when I'm right, which necessarily means that those who oppose my arguments must be wrong

 

---

well !! i dont mean to point out something, but I will (:

you do have a lot of silver cups at the mo. At least two anyways that I know about. One of which you pinched off me. But thats ok bc I have got a gold cup and I am happy to let you be happy with your silvers

q; (:

---

Don't get too complacent. It's only a matter of time before the gold cup becomes mine. And you can't defend against it in the meantime

---

i am not complacent. I am just bathing in my golden glow q; (:

ps. i wont have another go until I do get pushed off. Just so that one day hopefully you will come know what it is that only I know (:

---

You and Hugsy, if you mean what it's like to hold the gold cup. But Hugsy took forever to get where he got. I haven't looked just now but I think I'm the fastest one by a long way. Not that that wins anything

---

yes. I was really slow as well. I had to wait for nearly half an hour in the Blake Sea for the next sims to come up. Same halfway the last continent on the road. Just had sit and wait. And then again at the end of road. Spent ages camming between there and Bounce trying to work out how I was going to get there

also was 2 of the red hearts sims blocking the Bounce sim which took another age to work out how I was going to get past them given that they both had insta-death orbs at the time. Dunno if they are still there, but if so then I let you work it out for yourself when you get there

---

From what you said, I found a much quicker route. I know it's much quicker than the route Hugsy was using, because we watched him on the map. It sounds like you went on a similar route to Hugsy.