Jump to content
Scylla Rhiadra

The UnQueering of Second Life

Recommended Posts

 


Kascha Matova wrote:

Hmmm...I'd have slapped him until my fingers went numb if I could have. It may not have given me back what I lost but it would give me a nerve-impulse conduction problem with a cause I could reflect on with a smile for the rest of my days. Those can be unexpectedly hard to come by  :womanhappy:
 

I see we pretty much agree on the general method .. perhaps only differing on the details of implementation. I'd have chosen something less destructive (to my body) such as .. ohhh .. a baseball bat or tire iron .. or doctored photos of him and his boss' wife.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Carole Franizzi wrote:

So, you're establishing a whole new set of rules that LL, in their infinite wisdom, didn't bother to include.

Let's re-write the ToS, shall we?

"By undersigning the above, on being asked questions about your real-life, you undertake to either tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you Bob OR copy and paste the following: "no comment", as all creativity and imagination relating to your second life must pertain wholly to your avatar's existence".

 

The "rules" aren't the least bit related to Linden Lab. If you asked someone "did you take the last cookie from the cookie jar last night" while in an auto repair shop, the shop has no liability to ensure the truth of the answer given.

 

Carole says:

I beg to differ, Darius. I believe - correct me if I'm wrong - that Facebook doesn't allow avatar identities if not connected to a real-life one. Wasn't that the reason for the big stink over LL trying to persuade SLers to join FB?

Even if I've got my facts muddled about that - think of an on-line dating agency. You telling me they don't have some moral obligation to remove clients from their books found to have supplied photos which are not theirs and perhaps even of a different gender? I'm guessing they'd last about a week if they got a reputation for permitting such "flexibility" of truth. SL is a whole other ball-game.



Darrius Gothly wrote:

 Carole Franizzi wrote:

I wonder how many people asked "Would I find you as attractive as I find your avatar?" would be forced to answer "no comment"...

 

But that question does get asked .. a lot. However it's typically phrased something along the lines of "Is that the real you in your RL picture?" Sometimes, knowing that question is coming anyway, people intent on keeping up the deception will preemptively provide a "RL pic" .. of someone else.

I do agree, those wishing to keep their "bendedness" a secret
should
 answer along the lines of "I don't disclose RL stuff." There's plenty of people that prefer to keep SL and RL separate for no reasons other than they just do not want the two to intermingle. Thus refusing to answer with a definitive yes or no keeps you safe within the flock of "no comments".

Carole says:

A final point on the "no comment" option. "No comment" means "Yes, I'm confirming what you suspect but don't want to have to state clearly" most of the time.

"Are you a woman in rl?" - "No comment"

"Would I find you attractive?" - "No comment"

It's the same thing as saying "no" in these cases...therefore we're back to somehow wanting to force people to reveal RL facts about themselves that THEY are not comfortable with just so WE can have a degree of security in OUR fantasy.

Very much a case of "my fantasy world has priority over yours.", n'est pas?

I'm thinking of the poor lad who for all his life has been trapped inside a male body when inside he knows he's female. They invent SL and FINALLY he gets to be the person he feels he truly is - albeit a few hours a week. What's being said by various people in this thread is that in order to protect two other categories of fantasisers - the guys who have sex on an industrial scale and the romantic ladies and gents hoping to find the love of their life in here - this person's right (yes -
right
) to play SL as he chooses has to be supressed in order to permit the other two categories a freedom which he/she is denied. And no, I'm not a man in real-life. Just a dame who takes a look beyond my own garden hedge at times and realises that the universe doesn't rotate round my needs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Deltango Vale wrote:

"Whose morals? Yours or mine? British ones? American ones? Anglosaxon ones in general? If so, Protestant or Catholic?

Establishing morality in a cross-culural, trans-global society is a big headache, Dogboat. I hink it's simpler if each do what they feel is right and remember that others will do the same but according to THEIR values."

----------------------------------------------------

Gives Carole a big hug! :smileywink:

 

And Carole hugs back :smileyhappy:

PS how the heck do you reply so you quote but make your own contribution not appear part of the quote???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Theia Magic wrote:

You can dig for a fight where there is none all you like, and continue to try to find words in my statements that aren't there.

Sorry, but I don't take the bait.

In case basic human decency escapes you, it has nothing to do with TOS or any "rule".  It's about not being a liar and intentionally deceiving people.  Is that
really
such a hard concept to grasp?

ETA: Though completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, I make no claim that I look like my avatar, in fact if someone asks if I'm as attractive as Theia I'd likely laugh as I respond "oh heck no".  I refuse to lie.  Heck the only woman I know who's more attractive in RL than her avatar in Second Life is Ima. (yes it's sickening but true, she's beautiful lol)

 

I'm having a DISCUSSION on a DISCUSSION forum. That sometimes means not highfiving one another, sending kissy smilies, hugz and lolzzz.. It can sometimes mean presenting a different view point or disagreeing about a point made by another.  There's no bait being dangled. There's a certain degree of conceitedness to assume a person who doesn't know you would sit in front of her pc (on the other side of the world probably) thinking up ways to bait another complete stranger. I quite simply don't agree with you.

The concept I feel you are having difficulty in understanding is that SL is a fantasy world - hence disinguishing between legitimate manifestations of imagination and immoral, unethical lying is, in my opinion, utterly impossible.My suggestion is simply that those pushing for greater moral fibre in SLers just want to protect their own fantasy world by disallowing types of fantasies which they're not interested in.

Might I suggest (while we're on the topic of bait) that your extremely youthful and extraordinarily attractive avatar is as deceiptful as anything else being discussed here. Every interaction you have in here you do through that avatar and, in part, thanks to that avatar. Do you have in your profile "I am actually 45 and nowhere near as pretty as my avie" in your profile? Probably not. At what point do you reveal the truth? After a first meeting? A second? A tenth? When you THINK the other might be becoming "involved"? When he declares it? When he asks? What if he never asks? At what point do you demonstrate your undoubtedly enormous quantity of human decency by setting aside your fantasy and setting the other straight on your reality?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Carole Franizzi wrote: 

Mags Indigo wrote:

One also has the right to be deliberately obtuse or choose NOT to read what is written.

I'm afraid I have to say this - you have to be deliberately naive to expect what you appear to be expecting in SL. It's exactly the same as if I became all indignant over the "killing" of people in on-line war games. If don't like people pretending to kill others, I simply stay away from that game. SL is about pretending to be what you're not. If I felt I couldn't cope with that I just wouldn't play.

Another case entirely, if we were discussing an actual dating site.

 

You're completely ignoring that relationships do develop in SL .. and many times those relationships progress to a level where one or both parties begin to develop a very intense emotional attachment to the other.

If you want to keep SL for "playtime only" .. that's absolutely acceptable. Just as it's absolutely acceptable to "virtually kill virtual people" in a video game. But when a relationship moves to a "real" level .. on the part of one or both parties .. then you're using real guns and someone WILL get hurt if both are not honest and playing for keeps.

 

Oh no, I'm not. Human relationships will develop everywhere. In Nazi concentration camps. Under the Hutu machetes in Rwanda. In a space station orbiting planet Earth. That is the miracle of human love - it springs up in the most unlikely places. It doesn't mean any of those locations are ideal as fertile soil in which that love can grow and certainly not the best places in which to go looking for it.

SL remains - as much as some would wish to believe otherwise - one of the least suitable places in which to have an emotional attachment.

A relationship moves to a "real" level only when it's developed in the real world, Darius. You're kidding yourself if you think that in here a relationship is "real". Or maybe not...you did put apostrophes round the word "real"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Mags Indigo wrote:

One also has the right to be deliberately obtuse or choose NOT to read what is written.

 

I'm afraid I have to say this - you have to be deliberately naive to expect what you appear to be expecting in SL. It's exactly the same as if I became all indignant over the "killing" of people in on-line war games. If don't like people pretending to kill others, I simply stay away from that game. SL is about pretending to be what you're not. If I felt I couldn't cope with that I just wouldn't play.

Another case entirely, if we were discussing an actual dating site.

 

who ever said SL was about pretending to be what you are not?

 

You're kidding me, right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Mags Indigo wrote:

Actually in reality I'm expecting nothing at all out of SL - it's merely a virtual platform that I like to spend time on because I like to fiddle about with building and I like talking to people from all over the world.

It's people I expect things from - and then only if they're close enough to actually expect anything at all. People pretending to kill people is gaming in a totally up front way which unless one has mental health issues is pretty easy to see. People pretending to love other people and putting lots of effort and deceptive techniques to make it look believable are another kettle of fish entirely.

The discussion as I see it is about how people dupe themselves into believing that they can act like prats and it doesn't matter because it's a virtual platform. 

Neither do I think I'm right, I just think I'm more comfortable with how I think of things than agreeing that people can behave like prats and it's ok.

I'm sorry that seems to offend you, but really there is no need to 'worry' about my naivety - it's stood me in good stead to date.

 

I'm not the slightest bit offended. I wonder how you got that impression.

Can't say I agree that getting your kicks out of pretending to kill people is somehow okay, whilst pretending to love someone isn't. There's a huge piece of the SL economy which is based on the virtual love fantasy. LL makes its L50 (or whatever it is) by "marrying" you and annulling the "marriage". Creators make oodles out of digital wedding dresses, bouquets and wedding bands. Sim owners make money renting out their "wedding chapels" and people RP minsters, priests, justices of the peace. Or are you telling me those are real mariages? That the people involved believe they really really are hitched? I doubt that. Most people I know who are into the SL partnership game have been married several times. And I've yet to see a couple who lasted more than a couple of years. Most seem to last a handful of months.

Am I offended by that? Nope. If it makes their life a bit happier, who am I to judge? It's just one aspect of the game, that's all.

Prats? Are they prats? Because they want to RP a relationship based on the mutual projection of idealised versions of self? Surely not.

I'll say this again just in case I haven't been clear. Until a relationship has been moved into real-life, it isn't ever 100% "real".  Until that point you run huge risks of basing your affection on something which quite simply doesn't exist - on a person who is not what he/she has been projecting. Once it's in real-life, I'd undersign everything you've said. At that point, if they tell lies, they are something much worse than a prat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:

I beg to differ, Darius. I believe - correct me if I'm wrong - that Facebook doesn't allow avatar identities if not connected to a real-life one. Wasn't that the reason for the big stink over LL trying to persuade SLers to join FB?

Even if I've got my facts muddled about that - think of an on-line dating agency. You telling me they don't have some moral obligation to remove clients from their books found to have supplied photos which are not theirs and perhaps even of a different gender? I'm guessing they'd last about a week if they got a reputation for permitting such "flexibility" of truth. SL is a whole other ball-game.

The example you cite is where someone specifically lies to the proprietor (in the case of Second Life, that would be lies told to Linden Lab.) My example was about two people having a private conversation with each other that is unrelated to the business OF the proprietor. If JohnnyHotBody asks JennyWantsUBad "Are you a woman in real life?" that conversation is not only of no interest to Linden Lab, but isn't even on their radar (or readily visible to them). Thus they have no responsibility to determine the truthfulness of Jenny's answer or to compel the truth from her. That determination is solely on Johnny's shoulders.


Carole Franizzi wrote:

A final point on the "no comment" option. "No comment" means "Yes, I'm confirming what you suspect but don't want to have to state clearly" most of the time.

"Are you a woman in rl?" - "No comment"

"Would I find you attractive?" - "No comment"

It's the same thing as saying "no" in these cases...therefore we're back to somehow wanting to force people to reveal RL facts about themselves that THEY are not comfortable with just so WE can have a degree of security in OUR fantasy.

Very much a case of "my fantasy world has priority over yours.", n'est pas?

I'm thinking of the poor lad who for all his life has been trapped inside a male body when inside he knows he's female. They invent SL and FINALLY he gets to be the person he feels he truly is - albeit a few hours a week. What's being said by various people in this thread is that in order to protect two other categories of fantasisers - the guys who have sex on an industrial scale and the romantic ladies and gents hoping to find the love of their life in here - this person's right (yes -
right
) to play SL as he chooses has to be supressed in order to permit the other two categories a freedom which he/she is denied. And no, I'm not a man in real-life. Just a dame who takes a look beyond my own garden hedge at times and realises that the universe doesn't rotate round my needs.

Yes, the common interpretation of "no comment" is to assume the worst, and further to assume the answerer is refusing to answer just to avoid confrontation or self-incrimination. BUT .. that's only a private interpretation. Legally and ethically your only acceptable response is to make your own decision without any form of answer at all .. just as if you'd never asked the question.

Can people do that? Well .. that depends. LOL If it's an extremely emotional question and the person asking it is insecure or prone to jumping to conclusions ... chances are good they're going to assume the worst. But even if they DO assume the worst, that's NOT the fault of the "no comment" answerer; they absolved themselves of any participation OR responsibility simply by their answer.

Your example of the poor lad is a good one to illustrate this case. He may answer "no comment" not because he's male, but more because he simply is not comfortable sharing any personal info ... because he's just as confused and still working it out, or maybe because he's had bad experiences in the past, or maybe because he doesn't know the other person well enough or like them enough to even want to go that direction. But being basically honest, he (or perhaps she?) will just choose an answer that is not a lie, doesn't open the door to more problems .. and elminates a whole raft of other problems and questions that just are too much drama to be enjoyable.

Answering yes or no implies a willingness and a determination to follow the path that answer illuminates. But that's only two directions from a question that can very well have 100's of equally valid directions that aren't yes or no. Answering "no comment" is the catch-all that simply says "nunya" .. and nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Carole Franizzi wrote: 

Mags Indigo wrote:

One also has the right to be deliberately obtuse or choose NOT to read what is written.

I'm afraid I have to say this - you have to be deliberately naive to expect what you appear to be expecting in SL. It's exactly the same as if I became all indignant over the "killing" of people in on-line war games. If don't like people pretending to kill others, I simply stay away from that game. SL is about pretending to be what you're not. If I felt I couldn't cope with that I just wouldn't play.

Another case entirely, if we were discussing an actual dating site.

 

You're completely ignoring that relationships do develop in SL .. and many times those relationships progress to a level where one or both parties begin to develop a very intense emotional attachment to the other.

If you want to keep SL for "playtime only" .. that's absolutely acceptable. Just as it's absolutely acceptable to "virtually kill virtual people" in a video game. But when a relationship moves to a "real" level .. on the part of one or both parties .. then you're using real guns and someone WILL get hurt if both are not honest and playing for keeps.

 

Oh no, I'm not. Human relationships will develop everywhere. In Nazi concentration camps. Under the Hutu machetes in Rwanda. In a space station orbiting planet Earth. That is the miracle of human love - it springs up in the most unlikely places. It doesn't mean any of those locations are ideal as fertile soil in which that love can grow and certainly not the best places in which to go looking for it.

SL remains - as much as some would wish to believe otherwise - one of the least suitable places in which to have an emotional attachment.

A relationship moves to a "real" level only when it's developed in the real world, Darius. You're kidding yourself if you think that in here a relationship is "real". Or maybe not...you
did
put apostrophes round the word "real"....

 

The conditions under which a relationship develops are of no import to the reality of that relationship. History (both factual and romantic) are chock full of stories about two souls that fall in love yet never really "meet" in the traditional sense. Just for instance .. how about "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"?

Second Life is an incredibly sensory-rich experience. For many people, old and new to Virtual Reality, that amount of sensory overload completely washes away any safeguards they normally have. Thus they really DO "fall in love". I don't know off-hand of any scientific studies that demonstrate if their bodies undergo the same physiological changes that people in normal RL relationships do .. but I'd bet serious money they do. Of those people I've spoken with that have fallen in love online, and from my own past experiences, I'm very confident in my feelings on this issue.

Yes, "taking it to RL" is MUCH more enjoyable. But it is not the least bit necessary to develop every other emotional (and I believe physiological) response typically associated with RL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Carole Franizzi wrote:

I beg to differ, Darius. I believe - correct me if I'm wrong - that Facebook doesn't allow avatar identities if not connected to a real-life one. Wasn't that the reason for the big stink over LL trying to persuade SLers to join FB?

Even if I've got my facts muddled about that - think of an on-line dating agency. You telling me they don't have some moral obligation to remove clients from their books found to have supplied photos which are not theirs and perhaps even of a different gender? I'm guessing they'd last about a week if they got a reputation for permitting such "flexibility" of truth. SL is a whole other ball-game.

The example you cite is where someone specifically lies to the proprietor (in the case of Second Life, that would be lies told to Linden Lab.) My example was about two people having a private conversation with each other that is unrelated to the business OF the proprietor. If JohnnyHotBody asks JennyWantsUBad "Are you a woman in real life?" that conversation is not only of no interest to Linden Lab, but isn't even on their radar (or readily visible to them). Thus they have no responsibility to determine the truthfulness of Jenny's answer or to compel the truth from her. That determination is solely on Johnny's shoulders.

Carole says:

I still don't agree. The two examples I cite is where the proprietors specify in their ToS that the user/client must by law supply accurate and truthful personal information. We have that obligation to LL when we insert RL data to age-verify or supply credit card details but it ends there. In no part of the LL ToS are we informed that we that must supply other players with truthful and accurate RL data. The fact LL cannot monitor every private conversation is irrelevant. Age-play is prohibited and although it may be nigh on impossible for LL to prevent every episode of it occurring, they still go to the bother of specifying that it is not permitted. It's not a question of not being abe to take responsibility - LL could easily add a paragraph to their ToS to indicate the need to be upfront when discussing RL details, but in actual fact, what we have is the opposite. If I reveal personal information to you and you tell others, YOU can be banned for a breach of the privacy regulations.


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Carole Franizzi wrote:

A final point on the "no comment" option. "No comment" means "Yes, I'm confirming what you suspect but don't want to have to state clearly" most of the time.

"Are you a woman in rl?" - "No comment"

"Would I find you attractive?" - "No comment"

It's the same thing as saying "no" in these cases...therefore we're back to somehow wanting to force people to reveal RL facts about themselves that THEY are not comfortable with just so WE can have a degree of security in OUR fantasy.

Very much a case of "my fantasy world has priority over yours.", n'est pas?

I'm thinking of the poor lad who for all his life has been trapped inside a male body when inside he knows he's female. They invent SL and FINALLY he gets to be the person he feels he truly is - albeit a few hours a week. What's being said by various people in this thread is that in order to protect two other categories of fantasisers - the guys who have sex on an industrial scale and the romantic ladies and gents hoping to find the love of their life in here - this person's right (yes -
right
) to play SL as he chooses has to be supressed in order to permit the other two categories a freedom which he/she is denied. And no, I'm not a man in real-life. Just a dame who takes a look beyond my own garden hedge at times and realises that the universe doesn't rotate round my needs.

Yes, the common interpretation of "no comment" is to assume the worst, and further to assume the answerer is refusing to answer just to avoid confrontation or self-incrimination. BUT .. that's only a private interpretation.
Legally
and ethically
your only acceptable response
is to
make your own decision
without any form of answer at all .. just as if you'd never asked the question.

Carole says:

LEGALLY I may answer whatever I choose to about my real life. I'm under no obligation to supply answers about me, regulated by some list of rules or laws. What part of the ToS are you reading which you're interpreting as meaning you have a legal obligation to either tell accurate truths or reply "no comment"?

ETHICALLY, I'll do what *I* believe is ethical, well aware that my ethics will not match perfectly the ethics of those I meet in here. And I'll do that of my own free will as, again, I see no part of the ToS which obliges me to follow some code of ethics. Acceptable response? Acceptable to whom? To you? To JohnLuvverboy?Might I suggest what you wrote is contradictory. You're not allowing me to make my own decision. You're forcing me to indirectly answer with a "no comment" type reply which is indirectly a yes or a no, depending on the question you pose me.

 

Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Your example of the poor lad is a good one to illustrate this case. He may answer "no comment" not because he's male, but more because he simply is not comfortable sharing any personal info ... because he's just as confused and still working it out, or maybe because he's had bad experiences in the past, or maybe because he doesn't know the other person well enough or like them enough to even want to go that direction. But being basically honest, he (or perhaps she?) will just choose an answer that is not a lie, doesn't open the door to more problems .. and elminates a whole raft of other problems and questions that just are too much drama to be enjoyable.

Answering yes or no implies a willingness and a determination to follow the path that answer illuminates. But that's only two directions from a question that can very well have 100's of equally valid directions that aren't yes or no. Answering "no comment" is the catch-all that simply says "nunya" .. and nothing more.

 

Carole says

Darrius...if you're asked point-blank if you're male or female in real-life, there's no way avoiding either being forced to tell the truth, whether directly or indirectly ("no, I'm a bloke" - or - "no comment") or to lie ("sure, I'm a woman!"). It's black or white - there's no hazy grey area in between which allows the gender-bender to protect his privacy and his fantasy and which also allows the straight male who hopes to get down and dirty with her/him from "accidentally" having a homosexual encounter. And that's what it all boils down to in this specific case. Safeguarding some people's amusement in having casual pixel sexual relationships. Which, if you think about it, is much less "noble" (for want of a better word) than my fictious transexual who simply wants to live his life in the body of a woman after a lifetime of being trapped in the wrong one. Ethics are a tricky business. They can turn round and bite you in the bum if you're not careful.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Darrius wrote:

The conditions under which a relationship develops are of no import to the reality of that relationship. History (both factual and romantic) are chock full of stories about two souls that fall in love yet never really "meet" in the traditional sense. Just for instance .. how about "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"?

Second Life is an incredibly sensory-rich experience. For many people, old and new to Virtual Reality, that amount of sensory overload completely washes away any safeguards they normally have. Thus they really DO "fall in love". I don't know off-hand of any scientific studies that demonstrate if their bodies undergo the same physiological changes that people in normal RL relationships do .. but I'd bet serious money they do. Of those people I've spoken with that have fallen in love online, and from my own past experiences, I'm very confident in my feelings on this issue.

Yes, "taking it to RL" is MUCH more enjoyable. But it is not the least bit necessary to develop every other emotional (and I believe physiological) response typically associated with RL.

 

Carole says:

The Hunchback loves his gal because she behaves in a humane way to him. She, however, loves another - a much hunkier type of guy than poor old Quasimodo. They do meet in the most traditional of senses - only she doesn't fancy him. I think you might be thinking of the wrong story. However, had Quasi played SL, he could have made a super-hunky avie and got his gal to "fall in love" with him...so maybe it's relevant after all...

I'd bet serious money that there's a big difference to living a love story in the flesh and one trapped in a pc monitor, using idealised avatars to represent us and having no physical contact at all and no way to experience being part of that person's real-life... We'll both have to await the scientific study to see who's right.

EDITED TO ADD A PS

SL is an extraordinarily sensory POOR medium. It's 100% visual if you don't use voice, and if you do, that means only two of your five senses can be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:

 I'm not the slightest bit offended. I wonder how you got that impression.

Can't say I agree that getting your kicks out of pretending to kill people is somehow okay, whilst pretending to love someone isn't. There's a huge piece of the SL economy which is based on the virtual love fantasy. LL makes its L50 (or whatever it is) by "marrying" you and annulling the "marriage". Creators make oodles out of digital wedding dresses, bouquets and wedding bands. Sim owners make money renting out their "wedding chapels" and people RP minsters, priests, justices of the peace. Or are you telling me those are real mariages? That the people involved believe they really really are hitched? I doubt that. Most people I know who are into the SL partnership game have been married several times. And I've yet to see a couple who lasted more than a couple of years. Most seem to last a handful of months.

Am I offended by that? Nope. If it makes their life a bit happier, who am I to judge? It's just one aspect of the game, that's all.

Prats? Are they prats? Because they want to RP a relationship based on the mutual projection of idealised versions of self? Surely not.

I'll say this again just in case I haven't been clear. Until a relationship has been moved into real-life, it isn't ever 100% "real".  Until that point you run huge risks of basing your affection on something which quite simply doesn't exist - on a person who is not what he/she has been projecting. Once it's in real-life, I'd undersign everything you've said. At that point, if they tell lies, they are something much worse than a prat.

Actually it would seem as if I haven't been clear - at no stage have I ever cast criticism at people in SL who have sex, love, marry or do anything at all. I have said over and over again I love SL mainly for the fact that people can be and do pretty much as they want within the confines of a virtual world.

 

All I have asked is - when should one's 'morals' kick in? Cheating on an RL spouse or partner... 'pretending' to love someone in rl and giving the impression it will go to RL with no intent of it ever happening... cheating on SL partners while swearing you're not... All of these things happen in SL and when people are asked why they almost invariably say - it's a game it doesn't matter, if you don't want to play don't come to SL etc etc etc.

Fine that's how they think and I don't believe TOS or anything else should be changed to 'force' them to conform to anyone else's perceptions or moral codes. Again all I ask is - as adults is it really acceptable to lie, cheat and deceive knowing that you are misleading someone just so you can have fun? That's where people IMO become prats - not by having fun - but by having it at someone elses emotional expense. It always amazes me how people avoid discussing this without getting into all sorts of other arguments and their knickers in a twist.

I'll ask again - purely for discussion sake...

Is there a point in SL when as (presumably) adults we should moderate our behaviours in any given situation so that we do not cause someone else to be deliberately deceived by us acting out our 'fantasies' while allowing them to believe that we are being 'genuine' in an RL type way?

If the question isn't clear enough I retire because I seem to have exhausted my meager skills in the English language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Mags Indigo wrote:

One also has the right to be deliberately obtuse or choose NOT to read what is written.

 

I'm afraid I have to say this - you have to be deliberately naive to expect what you appear to be expecting in SL. It's exactly the same as if I became all indignant over the "killing" of people in on-line war games. If don't like people pretending to kill others, I simply stay away from that game. SL is about pretending to be what you're not. If I felt I couldn't cope with that I just wouldn't play.

Another case entirely, if we were discussing an actual dating site.

 

who ever said SL was about pretending to be what you are not?

 

You're kidding me, right?

 

 

then we have different interpretations of what SL is.

if you want to be false thats your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're walking WAY past your garden hedge Carole. *smile*

My point is that between two people, what they say to each other and the truth of those statements is of no concern to anyone else.

Sure, there's all sorts of follow-on stuff depending on what happens AFTER that conversation .. and some of it might or might not involved Linden Lab. But between those two and only those two .. there's not a situation in the world where rules written by some uninvolved third party can control them.

There are also agreements in place between Linden Lab and the users. But those agreements are between only those two parties (LL and a single user) and have no impact on any other resident of SL. If LL finds out you lied to them, they can take action against you .. remove you from SL or limit your access .. whatever they choose. But that's ONLY because you lied to them. If you tell LL the total truth but then never tell a truth to anyone else in SL .. LL won't care in the least. You told them the truth, why should they care if you lie to everyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

You're walking WAY past your garden hedge Carole. *smile*

My point is that between two people, what they say to each other and the truth of those statements is of no concern to anyone else.

Sure, there's all sorts of follow-on stuff depending on what happens AFTER that conversation .. and some of it might or might not involved Linden Lab. But between those two and only those two .. there's not a situation in the world where rules written by some uninvolved third party can control them.

Carole says:

That's simply not accurate. You had said clearly that I had legal obligations to be accurate about RL info given to other people. I replied that there's nothing in the ToS which obliges me to disclose anything to fellow players that i do not choose to. HOWEVER if we indulge in age-play and LL gets to find out about it, the reply "it's no concern of anybody's expect the two of us" doesn't hold. LL has been perfectly clear about what is and isn't permited. And being forced to be truthful regarding RL info to other players is not something they "legally" enforce.

What remains is
your
personal desire for everyone to feel morally and, somehow, vaguely legally forced to come clean about real-life - but that remains something you would be more at ease with, because it better suits
your
use of SL rather than something corresponding in any way to the actual mechanism of SL.

Maybe I
am
walking way past my hedge - if by that you mean I'm considering aspects of SL which don't involve me directly. But you see,
my
own moral structure obliges me to force myself to see things from the most objective point of view possible, and to try to put myself in other humans' shoes whenever my limited powers of understanding allow that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

who ever said SL was about pretending to be what you are not?

 

You're kidding me, right?

 

 

then we have different interpretations of what SL is.

if you want to be false thats your choice.

 

Well..uhm...yes...my avatar doesn't look a bit like me so that means I'm false. And oddly enough, I dont feel too bad about that...in a fantasy game based on inventing an alternative identity...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Mags Indigo wrote:

 

All I have asked is -
when should one's 'morals' kick in?

 

Carole says:

Excellent question to which I have don't have an equally excellent reply. As an ethical priority you'd have to (in my opinion) deal with the rl married person having an affair in here and to deal with that you'd have to establish where true identity lies - only within the physical body? Or can it be transfered to an external vehicle? I'll let the philosophers deal with that one - it's way above my head. Fact is, if you eliminated all those married, engaged, seeing people in real-life and all those with avatars which are more attractive than themselves... and younger... and fitter
...and more skimpily dressed
and
of a different gender...or sexual orientation
and all those who have told even one single fib in his whole time here
...well, I reckon there would be very few people on here at all.

My assumption is that people's morals are always operational. They just might not our own. They might not be his usual ones. If some guy genuinely sees SL as a game and other who play as fellow gamers, he can hardly be crucified for not applying his RL moral standards within SL. I know for a fact my moral framework in SL does not correspond exactly to my RL one as I've been known to do things in SL that I would never dream of in RL and I suspect that's fairly common.

So...again, I ask - whose morals? Mine? Which ones? My RL ones? But - if to me it's only a game? A fantasy? One I've invested heavily in money-wise as a form of entertainment? To be brutally honest - your morals, or JoeBigGuns's or Marybelletinkerflower's might spoil my amusement. I don't worry whether watching a violent film in which somebody gets fake disembowelled is immoral. Why should I be forced to cowtow to the vision of some people who consider SL the same as reality? To me it's not. And it never will be.

That sounds harsh. I've come an emotional cropper a couple of times myself in here. With some people I'm very, very real and open. With others I'll re-invent myself in a hundred different guises. But I get to choose who sees what side of me. And only I know which morality framework I'm applying - which is what I meant in my earlier post to you when you said you wouldn't choose to be friends with someone who laughed over their SL affair with their pals at the pub. We can't get inside one another's heads to see if they're "just playing" or "being real" or "playing at being real". What it means is indulging in a very high-risk game of emotional Russian roulette - you might strike lucky...most probably you won't. I for one prefer not to lay my emotions on the virtual lines.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

who ever said SL was about pretending to be what you are not?

 

You're kidding me, right?

 

 

then we have different interpretations of what SL is.

if you want to be false thats your choice.

 

Well..uhm...yes...my avatar doesn't look a bit like me so that means I'm false. And oddly enough, I dont feel too bad about that...in a fantasy game based on inventing an alternative identity...

 

 

see this is where our lines are getting crossed, i dont think SL is about having an alternate identity, i dont see it in terms of a fantasy, my avatar is the closest representation to me i can reasonably get to.

i am the same person in RL as SL.

i am an open book.

those that are not must be somehow dissatisfied with themselves.

i pity them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

who ever said SL was about pretending to be what you are not?

 

You're kidding me, right?

 

 

then we have different interpretations of what SL is.

if you want to be false thats your choice.

 

Well..uhm...yes...my avatar doesn't look a bit like me so that means I'm false. And oddly enough, I dont feel too bad about that...in a fantasy game based on inventing an alternative identity...

 

 

see this is where our lines are getting crossed, i dont think SL is about having an alternate identity, i dont see it in terms of a fantasy, my avatar is the closest representation to me i can reasonably get to.

i am the same person in RL as SL.

i am an open book.

those that are not must be somehow dissatisfied with themselves.

i pity them.

 

Well, with all due respect, Dogboat, your above statement is greatly at odds with LL's publicity and presentation of SL. I can't be the only one who understood that it was for creating an alternative identity.

You're confusing your own personal vision of how you wish to use SL with what the vast majority use it for and what it would appear to have been designed for.

The underlined sentences are a pretty arrogant statement to make in here. You choose an odd place to proclaim your disgust and pity for those who enjoy "dressing up" and role-playing. Pray tell - how does me prancing about as a woman who's probably a good 20 years older than I am in RL, a good bit less attractive, decidedly overweight and most certainly ridiculous looking demonstrate that I am dissatisfied with myself?? Couldn't I just be having a spot of fun? Is that so pathetic? I say this with the maximum of respect - but wouldn't you be more at ease in Facebook?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

 

Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

who ever said SL was about pretending to be what you are not?

 

You're kidding me, right?

 

 

then we have different interpretations of what SL is.

if you want to be false thats your choice.

 

Well..uhm...yes...my avatar doesn't look a bit like me so that means I'm false. And oddly enough, I dont feel too bad about that...in a fantasy game based on inventing an alternative identity...

 

 

see this is where our lines are getting crossed, i dont think SL is about having an alternate identity, i dont see it in terms of a fantasy, my avatar is the closest representation to me i can reasonably get to.

i am the same person in RL as SL.

i am an open book.

those that are not must be somehow dissatisfied with themselves.

i pity them.

 

Well, with all due respect, Dogboat, your above statement is greatly at odds with LL's publicity and presentation of SL. I can't be the only one who understood that it was for creating an alternative identity.

You're confusing your own personal vision of how you wish to use SL with what the vast majority use it for and what it would appear to have been designed for.

The underlined sentences are a pretty arrogant statement to make in here. You choose an odd place to proclaim your disgust and pity for those who enjoy "dressing up" and role-playing. Pray tell - how does me prancing about as a woman who's probably a good 20 years older than I am in RL, a good bit less attractive, decidedly overweight and most certainly ridiculous looking demonstrate that I am dissatisfied with myself?? Couldn't I just be having a spot of fun? Is that so pathetic? I say this with the maximum of respect - but wouldn't you be more at ease in Facebook?

 

 

i have no problem with those who want to live a fantasy life in a virtual world, i just dont want to be unwittingly included in other peoples mind games.

i have no problem with furries vampires or most other fantasy lifestyles or genders , the point is i dont choose or want  to be included in their lifestyles by deceit.

i dont care for facebook or blogs,  i'm really not interested in others petty lives or thoughts and i'm sure they are not interested in mine.

this forum is ok as its relevant to SL, my SL, and only genuine people, ty.

a lot of the people that have posted here are morally corrupt, and dont know the difference, i don't want to know them.

by the way, im not confusing anything, remember i have a choice. and i chose the moral way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*I'm shaking my head and walking away from this one in admiration at how well an intelligent person can avoid and even twist a mere question.

Good luck to you Carole - whatever furrow you're choosing to plough at the moment I hope you're enjoying it - for now I'm going to accept that it's an inprobability to actually discuss anything other than the points you want to keep harping back to. If this means you've won I hope you get satisfaction from it.

See you all sometime folks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Mags Indigo wrote:

*I'm shaking my head and walking away from this one in admiration at how well an intelligent person can avoid and even twist a mere question.

Good luck to you Carole - whatever furrow you're choosing to plough at the moment I hope you're enjoying it - for now I'm going to accept that it's an inprobability to actually discuss anything other than the points you want to keep harping back to. If this means you've won I hope you get satisfaction from it.

See you all sometime folks 

 

I've re-read my replies to you, Mags, and I see no earthly reason for your reaction. I can't help it if I do not share your point of view - all I have done is state mine as clearly as I am able and attempt to explain why I see things this way. I appear to have attempted to answer you point by point without becoming overly verbal - as is my habit. I don't see where I have "twisted" anything or avoided any main point you made. I'm not saying I succeeded in expressing myself perfectly each time - far from it - but If I had missed points or was unclear why not simply repeat whatever point you want addressed instead of the virtual flouncing out of the door, slamming it behind you?

The insinuation that I'm "ploughing a furrow" leaves me perplexed and rather offended. My "enjoyment" over this "furrow" implies that I'm simply stating I don't agree in order to be contrary, due to my sadistic nature, and not because I'm expressing the view I hold. I beg to differ. I confirm my views are exactly what I've stated so far and I think it's rather disappointing that a discussion cannot be carried out without resorting to indirect personal attacks.

Not for the first time in these fora has the time and effort taken to craft a reply to a post been treated with contempt and disregard - simply because it does not echo the other person's point of view. And not for the first time am I forced to point out to a person who does not know me at all - personal attacks are not only out of place in here but slightly ridiculous as you know absolutely nothing about me. In other words - would it be rude of me to request you keep your inventive analyses of my character and motivations to yourself?

I thought this was a discussion board. Evidently not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:

I've re-read my replies to you, Mags, and I see no earthly reason for your reaction. I can't help it if I do not share your point of view - all I have done is state mine as clearly as I am able and attempt to explain why I see things this way. I appear to have attempted to answer you point by point without becoming overly verbal - as is my habit. I don't see where I have "twisted" anything or avoided any main point you made. I'm not saying I succeeded in expressing myself perfectly each time - far from it - but If I had missed points or was unclear why not simply repeat whatever point you want addressed instead of the virtual flouncing out of the door, slamming it behind you?

The insinuation that I'm "ploughing a furrow" leaves me perplexed and rather offended. My "enjoyment" over this "furrow" implies that I'm simply stating I don't agree in order to be contrary, due to my sadistic nature, and not because I'm expressing the view I hold. I beg to differ. I confirm my views are exactly what I've stated so far and I think it's rather disappointing that a discussion cannot be carried out without resorting to indirect personal attacks.

Not for the first time in these fora has the time and effort taken to craft a reply to a post been treated with contempt and disregard - simply because it does not echo the other person's point of view. And not for the first time am I forced to point out to a person who does not know me at all - personal attacks are not only out of place in here but slightly ridiculous as you know absolutely nothing about me. In other words - would it be rude of me to request you keep your inventive analyses of my character and motivations to yourself?

I thought this was a discussion board. Evidently not.

 

 

I apologise if I seem rude or indeed if I made presumptions - all I meant and still mean is that you and I seem not to be able to 'see' each other's point on this. You have your take on the discussion and I have mine and it is entirely my incapacity to express myself that is making an issue. I have no wish to comment on other people's morals or what moral codes or ethics they may have, I was trying very unsuccessfully to ask does being on the internet excuse people from actually acting with any regard for others. I actually like people to take contrary positions to my own, but on this one the discussion seems to keep going off on an entirely different tangent entirely.

I seem to have done that myself in your eyes - and without slamming any doors - or indeed flouncing - I shall once again apologise and once again remove myself from a thread that I have made whatever contribution I seem able to - which wasn't much.

Good evening

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Mags Indigo wrote:

 

Carole Franizzi wrote:

I've re-read my replies to you, Mags, and I see no earthly reason for your reaction. I can't help it if I do not share your point of view - all I have done is state mine as clearly as I am able and attempt to explain why I see things this way. I appear to have attempted to answer you point by point without becoming overly verbal - as is my habit. I don't see where I have "twisted" anything or avoided any main point you made. I'm not saying I succeeded in expressing myself perfectly each time - far from it - but If I had missed points or was unclear why not simply repeat whatever point you want addressed instead of the virtual flouncing out of the door, slamming it behind you?

The insinuation that I'm "ploughing a furrow" leaves me perplexed and rather offended. My "enjoyment" over this "furrow" implies that I'm simply stating I don't agree in order to be contrary, due to my sadistic nature, and not because I'm expressing the view I hold. I beg to differ. I confirm my views are exactly what I've stated so far and I think it's rather disappointing that a discussion cannot be carried out without resorting to indirect personal attacks.

Not for the first time in these fora has the time and effort taken to craft a reply to a post been treated with contempt and disregard - simply because it does not echo the other person's point of view. And not for the first time am I forced to point out to a person who does not know me at all - personal attacks are not only out of place in here but slightly ridiculous as you know absolutely nothing about me. In other words - would it be rude of me to request you keep your inventive analyses of my character and motivations to yourself?

I thought this was a discussion board. Evidently not.

 

 

I apologise if I seem rude or indeed if I made presumptions - all I meant and still mean is that you and I seem not to be able to 'see' each other's point on this. You have your take on the discussion and I have mine and it is entirely my incapacity to express myself that is making an issue. I have no wish to comment on other people's morals or what moral codes or ethics they may have, I was trying very unsuccessfully to ask does being on the internet excuse people from actually acting with any regard for others. I actually like people to take contrary positions to my own, but on this one the discussion seems to keep going off on an entirely different tangent entirely.

I seem to have done that myself in your eyes - and without slamming any doors - or indeed flouncing - I shall once again apologise and once again remove myself from a thread that I have made whatever contribution I seem able to - which wasn't much.

Good evening

 

It has actually been a great discussion!

I think that Carole did, as best as the question can be answered, acknowledge your question.  Since I lack the ability to be eloquent in my writing...I'll just blunt it out :)

Your question, Mags, should human beings, at some point in any given situation, be cognizant and act responsibily when dealing with other peoples feelings...The short answer is...Yes, they should and I bet, if we were all born in the same culture, environment, with the same genetic code, religion, traditions, hopes, dreams, expecations, needs and desires, and equally satisfying experiences of love, and sharing, of giving and caring, and we were all beautiful, and healthy, and free of life restricting disabilities or diseases...we would all treat each other the same and with a high degree of respect if for no other reason than we are exactly alike and equal in all things.  But that is not the case...and it never will be.  There are individuals  born who appear to be physically male or female with clothes on, but their genitalia can not be distinguished as one or the other.  This person, has all the wants, desires, emotions, and inclinations of a female, but they look male.  They lead their SL as a female.  They are being true to their genetic id and not their physical appearance.  Yes! They exclaim, I am a woman, and genetically, they are, but physically they appear male so they live their RL as a male because they cannot overcome their physical appearance.  Is it dishonest for the individual who by appearance is a male to engage as a male with a woman when this intersex individual knows that they really identify as a female? That is complicated, yes? But that very scenario exists.  Should they disclose all of this information to you prior to say "I think I love you?"  Personally, I don't think so.  I realize that is not a popular opinion, but why does my need, want and desire to know this information, trump their need, want and desire to love someone across the digital divide without having to acknowledge what has been a situation that has been a source of great pain all of their life?  And what of the individual that was so badly disfigured at birth or during a formative period in their life and they have never even so much as had a RL date?  Yes, they are the actual gender that they report themselves to be.  They are a handsome or gorgeous avatar and they have the gift of charm, intelligence and kindness that oozes from their chat...they get attention for the very first time from the opposite sex and it is intoxicating and it is addicting and YES! they exclaim, finally I am appreciated for who I am and not what I look like!  They love the attention and the feelings of acceptance and affection and they make many alts, each representing a part of them that is a virtual representation of a wish or image of what they have and will never be in RL...Should they go back to living their sad, lonely and disfigured life in order that I don't get my feelings hurt?  Maybe....but I don't think so. 

I think the onus of honesty is on each of us as individuals to report right away those things that we are not tolerant of.  We have profiles, we can advertise for all to see what we deem as personal violations of our moral code.  Nothing prevents any of us from stating in our profiles...

If you are transgendered...stay away from me

If you are gay...Cya

If you do not have a college education...check back with me when you graduate

If you are a republican...get on your elephant and ride outta my pixel life

If you are a democrat...you can kiss my ass ;)

If your male bits are not at least X" x X"....Umm...lol...not worth the cigarette...

If your bra size is not above a C....call a plastic surgeon...then holla..

So on and so forth...you get the point...

There is no one moral code in which we can all apply to every resident of SL...In my country, it is considered very poor manners to belch...in other countries, it is an insult if you don't...See...we don't even have a set of manners that is universal...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:

That's simply not accurate. You had said clearly that I had legal obligations to be accurate about RL info given to other people. I replied that there's nothing in the ToS which obliges me to disclose anything to fellow players that i do not choose to. HOWEVER if we indulge in age-play and LL gets to find out about it, the reply "it's no concern of anybody's expect the two of us" doesn't hold. LL has been perfectly clear about what is and isn't permited. And being forced to be truthful regarding RL info to other players is not something they "legally" enforce.

What remains is
your
personal desire for everyone to feel morally and, somehow, vaguely legally forced to come clean about real-life - but that remains something you would be more at ease with, because it better suits
your
use of SL rather than something corresponding in any way to the actual mechanism of SL.

Maybe I
am
walking way past my hedge - if by that you mean I'm considering aspects of SL which don't involve me directly. But you see,
my
own moral structure obliges me to force myself to see things from the most objective point of view possible, and to try to put myself in other humans' shoes whenever my limited powers of understanding allow that.

Ahhh .. okay. I see the "disconnect". (BTW: When you reply and hit "Quote", click below the text it added and start typing there. That will fix the "having to boldface your stuff" formatting issue.)

First off I have no personal desire for anyone to "come clean" in the context of their own personal use of Second Life. I'm completely comfortable with a person using it how they wish. If they want to live a totally fictitious Second Life, or if they want to portray their Second Life to be as near to RL as possible .. or even if they want to find some personally pleasing point in the middle ... that is THEIR choice and I respect that. If I've given you the impression that I somehow want others to fit my prejudged mold, my apologies .. that is absolutely 100% opposite of my personal beliefs.

We started this dance when I replied to a comment you'd made in reply to Theia Magic in which you said:


Carole Franizzi wrote:

So, you're establishing a whole new set of rules that LL, in their infinite wisdom, didn't bother to include.

Let's re-write the ToS, shall we?

"By undersigning the above, on being asked questions about your real-life, you undertake to either tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you Bob OR copy and paste the following: "no comment", as all creativity and imagination relating to your second life must pertain wholly to your avatar's existence".

I wonder how many people asked "Would I find you as attractive as I find your avatar?" would be forced to answer "no comment"...

My reply was an attempt to point out that what is said in private between two people is generally of no concern to the location where that conversation takes place. I used the example of two people talking while in an auto repair shop. The content of the example conversation was not related to the auto repair shop, dealt with a situation private to the two people, and involved one person lying to the other.

It's my belief that people should be free to discuss among themselves anything they wish regardless of where those conversations take place. They should also be free to lie or tell the truth as they see fit. Just as the owner of the auto repair shop doesn't care in the slightest whether a lie is being told in his shop, Linden Lab doesn't care if people lie to each other within Second Life.

The reason I picked up on your comment (quoted above) was that it brought Linden Lab into the private conversations of people within Second Life. You stated that the ToS needed to be rewritten to expressly forbid people lying to each other. I know you were being facetious, that's not the issue.

Theia's reply wasn't attempting to say "here's a hard and fast rule that LL needs to enforce." She was saying that in her view, people should be honest with each other .. or give a non-answer ("no comment" or her example "I don't discuss real life details.") In other words, if you can't tell the truth, give a non-answer instead of a lie.

Where I took up the sword here was you bringing LL into the picture ... and thus why I replied about the auto shop etc. I do not believe Theia was at all suggesting Linden Lab become involved, or that the ToS should be used to force people to tell the truth. I believe Theia was stating her own personal beliefs about private conversations between two people and NOT attempting to demand honesty just because the people are inside Second Life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...