Is this a griefer or just a plain idoit?

[fuzzypanda109]

Hello,

Earlier today was relaxing on the Davinci Gardens sim when a guy on a dragon kept shooting fire on me. I observed that he did not do this action to anyone else on the SIM.

IF we were to compare this to real world attacking anyone would be termed as a violent act, so why not on SL?

Maybe there should be the option to not only block someone's voice/text but also their actions?

Kindly look into this individual, I don't know if he will be dumb enough (or troll) again to try this on me using another avatar. I have had previous incident in the past being "caged".

I tried talking to him in messages, asking why he was doing this but he didn't respond.

The avatar's name is now edited due to violation of said terms.

 

I hope this is considered as a serious matter, sometimes what may be fun trolling by sick-minded persons are actually annoying to peaceful residents.

 

Thank you!

Edited September 19, 2017 by fuzzypanda109

[Lillith Hapmouche]

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Think of me as Wile E. Coyote, surrounded by flameproof Roadrunners.

Pure horror! 

I hate that annoying a*sehole bird with a passion. Along with Tweety and Jerry.

[Madelaine McMasters]

Just now, Lillith Hapmouche said:

Pure horror! 

I hate that annoying a*sehole bird with a passion. Along with Tweety and Jerry.

When I was young, I thought the Roadrunner was the bee's knees. I fancied myself invincible, as many children do. Over the years, I have come to love Wile. He's eminently fallible, but his optimism and determination are endearing and, in my case, infectious.

[LittleMe Jewell]

2 hours ago, fuzzypanda109 said:

They should be removed and banned based upon lacking to follow initial disciplinary measures. In my personal opinion.

What "initial disciplinary measures' did anyone not follow?  There are none because none apply.  

You truly do not understand SL.

Your best solution is as follows:  
   1) If you are logged inworld, click the 'X' in the upper right corner.  

   2) Uninstall the viewer application.

   3) Forget you ever heard of SL.

[Lillith Hapmouche]

Clearly, you lack the ability to differentiate between your real self and a bunch of pixels representing your virtual, fictional, created persona.

You aren't the first and you certainly won't be the last with that mentality, and probably everyone who replied here dealt with someone like you before and you, the one lacking experience with rationally dealing with some inworld affairs, choose to simply ignore all of the cumulative experience that was offered to you with good intentions. 

Lil's solution is probably by far the best for you and for your sanity.

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 hour ago, fuzzypanda109 said:

.... a person peacefully on a non-gaming sim, a garden no less, relaxing not involved in any from of RP, not knowing another person and being the only one attacked/targetted. Does it feel like playful comics being acted out to me?

Yeah, it sucks to be targeted by someone.  However, in the realm of SL reality (now there's an oxymoron), it does not meet the TOS definition of abuse and that is what rules us.

[Cinnamon Mistwood]

I know you didn't get the answer and support you were hoping for, but your answer is in your title

Is this a griefer    No

or just plain idoit?  Yes

You are in control of your Secondlife.  Just mute/block/derender the idiot and enjoy your time inworld.   Comparing an idiot blowing pretend flames at you in a pixel world to a real life rape victim will not help your cause.  Someone flicking a pretend booger at you is not the same as someone shooting you with a real life bullet.

I am sorry you had to deal with an idiot inworld.  I wish it didn't happen.  It does and a good way to deal with it is to just make them disappear.

 

 

 

[Callum Meriman]

9 hours ago, fuzzypanda109 said:

Let's just go with this a little further, supposedly someone were to rape you on SL, would you grow a thicker skin and laugh it off because it's not actually rape.

Not even counting that these are just pixels, and one can't rape pixels.... How can it be rape if you have the power to Teleport out, or even log out? If you don't teleport away, or mute and stand up, then it's clear YOU LIKE THE RAPE and wish to see it through.

You do need to grow a thicker skill fuzzypanda, because in this world your avatar is empowered in ways that are not possible in the real world.

[Syo Emerald]

19 hours ago, fuzzypanda109 said:

Someone shooting fire on you isn't violent? I think that I explained how it can be understood that way. I'm sure everyone who has been trolled online and told to kill themselves etc also it did nothing to them, oh wait, some people actually did commit suicide after being blackmailed and harrassed by a virtual person....oh look at that! how non-effecting it was

Did you just compare orange particles shaped in the form of what could be called fire to actual harrassement and blackmail?!

Wow...just wow.

For the sake of de-escalating this: Lets call the fire what it actually is, a cloud of orange particles. Your avatar got shortly wrapped into a cloud of orange-red particles. This action is not violent. Orange-red particles do not cause any damage to your avatar, your inventory, viewer, computer or the physical and mental health of your real life self. Its annoying at best, as it disturbed your view for a while.

Blackmailing someone does harm...thats part of the definition and its damage is not tied to the place it happens and not tied to some physical law. Virtual fire will never work like real fire. The damage real fire does is impossible to recreate in virtual space (on its own). But blackmailing is blackmailing, no matter if you know the person doing it in flesh and blood or just met them online.

[Annika Velde]

20 hours ago, fuzzypanda109 said:

Clearly some of you are too technical with Grammer and Spellchecks to understand beyond this.  I do realize and sympathize with real worldly matters such as victims of hurricanes, crimes and such. But it's really the little things that matter and eventually lead to the bigger things. If we make these changes it will have a positive impact.

Notwithstanding that I was a bit hot-headed when I began writing my post, not one person has addressed it sufficiently rather ignore it, use diversionary tactics in comparing a person peacefully on a non-gaming sim, a garden no less, relaxing not involved in any from of RP, not knowing another person and being the only one attacked/targetted. Does it feel like playful comics being acted out to me?

There is a zone between friendly and aggressive, once you cross that there's no going back. How about someone creates some form of weapon to nuke some of you? Is that all fun and games. Rather, you will be looking for the alligator that swallowed his hand after Peter Pan cut it off.

I can only hope (for a miracle) that the magic beans (of good sense) planted will sprout into a stalk and then a giant tree.

Until we meet again fellow residents,
Farewell. *waves*

 

 

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Plain and simple. Many of us here in answers have been on SL for years. We understand that people are annoying sometimes and the easiest way to make your own SL better, is to mute and derender the annoyance. After you do so, it's like they never existed. Personally I enjoy people being silly like that but if you don't, you have options. 

Good luck in your SL lol

[Sheleaf]

no eye brows anymore now?

[Lindal Kidd]

On 9/19/2017 at 3:37 PM, fuzzypanda109 said:

Notwithstanding that I was a bit hot-headed when I began writing my post, not one person has addressed it sufficiently rather ignore it, use diversionary tactics in comparing a person peacefully on a non-gaming sim, a garden no less, relaxing not involved in any from of RP, not knowing another person and being the only one attacked/targetted. Does it feel like playful comics being acted out to me?

There is a zone between friendly and aggressive, once you cross that there's no going back. How about someone creates some form of weapon to nuke some of you? Is that all fun and games. Rather, you will be looking for the alligator that swallowed his hand after Peter Pan cut it off.

Hi Fuzzy!

You're clearly experiencing a phenomenon called "immersion".  This is a feeling that your avatar in Second Life is YOU, and you feel and experience what happens to you very strongly.  In most cases, this is a GOOD thing.  We can dance, laugh, and love in SL and feel the same feelings that we do in Real Life when we do these things.  It's downright addictive.

But when some joker comes on the scene, it can be extremely upsetting as well.  I remember very clearly the time I was "raped"...I was standing on a pose stand in a public place, adjusting my jewelry, when some ugly cretin jumped on me and started humping me while whispering salacious comments in chat.  I was new, and I was paralyzed with fear and disgust.

It's at times like these that we have to step back and make a conscious effort to un-immerse.  Remember, as the others have told you, that "it's only pixels!"  That will let you stay calm enough to take the appropriate actions:  Mute the offender, teleport away or log off.  Or choose to go along with it...when Maddy sets you on fire, scream "AIEEEEE!" and run around frantically, then jump in the nearest body of water.

Being able to switch back and forth from immersion to being objective is a learned skill, and once you have it, you'll never need to Abuse Report trivial annoyances again.  In fact, you'll be able to have fun with some of these jokes yourself.  One of my favorites is an attachment called "Collider Death".  If you wear it, anyone who bumps into you will make you fall down and hit your head.  An alarming pool of blood spreads around your body.  Just remember to only play these games with your friends...don't be like the nasty dragon who assaulted you!

[Akasha Sternberg]

On 19.9.2017 at 7:12 PM, Madelaine McMasters said:

Think of me as Wile E. Coyote

 

SO MUCH YES!!!!!

[LittleMe Jewell]

2 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

One of my favorites is an attachment called "Collider Death".  If you wear it, anyone who bumps into you will make you fall down and hit your head.  An alarming pool of blood spreads around your body.  

Apparently something that I missed in my early SL years.  I'll have to find this as it could be such fun.

[Rolig Loon]

7 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

I'll have to find this as it could be such fun.

Then you will LOVE the new Linden Lab grid-wide game.  Your chances of getting hit by an anvil or a piano or a VW bus are really high. 

[Lindal Kidd]

11 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Oooh, I think you'd like Pandora Wrigglesworth's (her store is Curio Obscura) "Crash into Ground" attachment, Lindal. If you stop flying, when you hit the ground it'll rez (if you have rez-rights) a black hole on the ground. You can select from several human outlines, including a female wearing a dress. It also poofs a cloud of dust and animates your avatar climbing out of the hole.

I never leave home without it!

/me runs, not walks, to find this Wonderful Thing.

[Nalates Urriah]

3 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I have no idea what I mean by soul. I suspect if I dug deep enough, I'd determine that nobody else does either. Our brains have a mind of their own and we'll learn more about that over time, hopefully with the constant goal of making existence better for all of us.

As for playing thought games, I will say that the more I learn about how ideas and drugs can affect neurochemistry in the same way, the more interested I become in learning how inject others without getting my hands dirty. I'm coming to believe that storytellers were humanity's first drug dealers.

Have you tried the dictionary? It provides an accurate shared reality definition. If you start digging, you will find that most people interested in the question have a clear idea of what they mean by the word soul.

To say I don't believe there is a soul and also say 'I have no idea what I mean by soul' pretty much says, I have no idea what I believe... You generally seem more rational than that.

Saying the brain has a mind of its own... sort of confuses and conflates at the same time. The brain is a physical thing that can be touched. Mind is the activity of the brain and can only be experienced. 

We know electrical stimulation of the brain can trigger memories and sensations. We are learning the brain is not all we thought it was. For instance numerous experiments show memory exists outside the brain. There is a probability that to some extent it is DNA based. The definitive experiments are of course done on rats. Gruesome as it is, rats are trained to run mazes and then turned into rat food. Rats fed the food from trained maze runners learn to run mazes much faster. What in ground up rat could convey that information? Those doing the studies/experiments tend toward DNA.

So, are those reported visions of previous lives just an ability to access DNA memory? No definitive answers available...

But, a mind is generally the person. The person has a mind and it can be lost, but that is not the same as losing a brain, which is terminal. That a brain has a mind seems a backward twist of thinking. Psychologists think of the mind as controlling. Pathological issues with the brain can affect how the mind works, or doesn't. But the mind is the controller.

A famous example is the case of multiple personality disorders in which a patient with multiple personalities had one with diabetes. Others in the person didn't. Blood test were run to sort out the physical health problems and the non-diabetic and diabetic test results initialed more study and a direct correlation between test results and the personality in place at the time of the test. A serious case of mind over body.

My point is, the basis for much of humanities study and scientific advance is tied to clear basic understanding of philosophy. For a person to not know what they mean by the words they say, would seem to leave them isolated in a world exploding with amazing new knowledge. They appear to be left in the primitive world of magic... with no means of determining what is real or possible.

[Rolig Loon]

50 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

For a person to not know what they mean by the words they say, would seem to leave them isolated in a world exploding with amazing new knowledge. They appear to be left in the primitive world of magic... with no means of determining what is real or possible.

.... which brings to mind a famous satirical commentary on relativistic thinking, spoken from a magical world:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

[Madelaine McMasters]

7 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Have you tried the dictionary? It provides an accurate shared reality definition.

I've suppose I've never thought of the dictionary in the way you do. It represents a committee's consensus perception of current public perception of something. I've reason to believe that might change over time, as evidenced by the edition numbers. Websters lists eight definitions for soul at this time, most of which have a tenuous relationship to this discussion.

I've been in conversations where someone said I had a good soul (bad too, but I ignore them ;-). I've replied that I don't believe in souls, only to have them say "well, what I mean by soul is..." and then go on to describe something I'm quite comfortable with. I've also had people push back hard, one to the point of changing their mind. That was a tongue-biter. I think you and I could probably come to fair understandings of each other's personal philosophies, which might mean I hold a special definition of "soul" in mind when conversing with you.

1 hour ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Saying the brain has a mind of its own... sort of confuses and conflates at the same time.

Isn't that what you'd expect from me? The more I think about thinking, the more I realize there's a lot going on in my brain behind my conscious mind's back. And that leads me to allow for uncertainty in everything I know. Some people believe their conscious thoughts are all that's going on in their heads, I don't. I understand the utility of subconscious thought, but also question it. I won't go into it here, but I have found I can ask my subconscious questions, and get answers. There are probably books (on meditation?) to teach how to do this, I haven't looked. I might also be imagining I can do this. There are probably books about that, too.

58 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

You generally seem more rational than that.

Well then, my facade works!

;-).

[Nalates Urriah]

16 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

.... which brings to mind a famous satirical commentary on relativistic thinking, spoken from a magical world:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

 

You make a valid point. But, Humpty is an excellent example of narcissistic thinking in this quote. While I don't address the point of relativistic thinking, I think Humpty's consideration of only self and not how he is being heard is key to the fallacies in his framing of the ideas. Conversation is about conveying clear ideas. If one does not consider how the listener perceives the statements, they can't communicate their ideas. Thus the need for dictionaries.

George Orwell's 1984 depicts how adulteration of language removes a people's ability to clearly deal with a corrupt political system. Dictators always try to control communication, avoiding free speech. In a society with free speech enshrined in their basic laws other tactics have to be used to limit the transfer of ideas. The point is to get people to the place where they are unclear what they are saying. 

If people have no idea what a soul is, how can they talk about it? Much less decide if one exists or not.

[Pamela Galli]

Maddy, just ask yourself: What do collard greens and Wilson Pickett have in common?

[Pamela Galli]

5 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

If people have no idea what a soul is, how can they talk about it? Much less decide if one exists or not.

Good point. I would say that same about the many definitions and conceptions of the word god, which is why I never discuss the subject on the internet. What I mean and what someone else means are rarely the same. Almost never. 

[Nalates Urriah]

6 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I've suppose I've never thought of the dictionary in the way you do. It represents a committee's consensus perception of current public perception of something. I've reason to believe that might change over time, as evidenced by the edition numbers. Websters lists eight definitions for soul at this time, most of which have a tenuous relationship to this discussion.

I think that is an accurate assessment of a dictionary. The purpose of it is so we can use words to convey ideas so most people would understand what we mean. If I user a 16th century meaning I should not be surprised that most current day people misunderstand me.

I find it odd you think all 8 definitions are only tenuously related to this discussion. So, while we might come to an agreement of what a soul is or isn't, having to deal with defining words for a conversation with each individual becomes tedious and often confusing. As a society we use the common definitions and retain an awareness of the extended possible connotations of a word. We may have to sort through them to figure out what a person likely meant. 

The publishers of dictionaries provide a service so we can clearly communicate. To forego their service limits our ability to communicate and complicates everything.

22 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Isn't that what you'd expect from me? The more I think about thinking, the more I realize there's a lot going on in my brain behind my conscious mind's back. And that leads me to allow for uncertainty in everything I know. Some people believe their conscious thoughts are all that's going on in their heads, I don't. I understand the utility of subconscious thought, but also question it. I won't go into it here, but I have found I can ask my subconscious questions, and get answers. There are probably books (on meditation?) to teach how to do this, I haven't looked. I might also be imagining I can do this. There are probably books about that, too.

Well then, my facade works!

;-).

...ummmm actually no. But, you are getting me to reconsider.  

I agree there is far more going on in our minds than we are are aware of. Psychologists use a model of the mind (person? soul?) that conveys the idea of 3 personalities making a single person. Depending on who's branch of psychology you prefer the names change. I prefer what I consider the more literally descriptive; high-self, conscious-self, and subconscious-self. And there are books on your points.

But, I don't see how any of that helps you come to a conclusion about whether a soul exists or not?

Webster's definitions would seem to make that an easy answer. So, I assume you present your facade to avoid an answer or you just find it more fun to mess with me.   Which is the whole point of being here.

[Madelaine McMasters]

32 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

Maddy, just ask yourself: What do collard greens and Wilson Pickett have in common?

I don't think that definition of soul is relevant to this discussion. The connection that immediately sprang to my mind was the picket fence around my childhood veggie garden.

;-).

[Rolig Loon]

23 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

You make a valid point. But, Humpty is an excellent example of narcissistic thinking in this quote. While I don't address the point of relativistic thinking, I think Humpty's consideration of only self and not how he is being heard is key to the fallacies in his framing of the ideas. Conversation is about conveying clear ideas. If one does not consider how the listener perceives the statements, they can't communicate their ideas. Thus the need for dictionaries.

George Orwell's 1984 depicts how adulteration of language removes a people's ability to clearly deal with a corrupt political system. Dictators always try to control communication, avoiding free speech. In a society with free speech enshrined in their basic laws other tactics have to be used to limit the transfer of ideas. The point is to get people to the place where they are unclear what they are saying. 

If people have no idea what a soul is, how can they talk about it? Much less decide if one exists or not.

I quite agree, and that's what Lewis Carroll was saying by putting those words in Humpty and Alice's mouths.  You can't go far down the relativistic road before you whack your nose against chaos. 

At the same time, however, I take Maddy's point that a dictionary is hardly the most reliable standard for us to measure against.  For one thing, most words -- certainly most complex philosophical words -- have several nuanced meanings, so it is important to specify which meaning we should be agreeing upon.  Second, any dictionary has an unavoidable cultural bias, since it arrives at consensus "meanings" by trying to reflect how words are used within a specific target population.  Hence, the reason why the many dictionaries in common use -- even here in the U.S, leaving the rest of the English-speaking world aside -- offer differing definitions of even the most common words.  Finally, languages evolve.  My go-to dictionary has long been the 1898 edition of the Century Dictionary, which offers exhaustive etymological analyses and has an amazingly large word list.  It is, however, outdated.  It speaks in the language of my great-grandparents, who had surprisingly different meanings for words like "gay" and "secretary" than we do now, and who also had different cultural understandings about words like "soul".

Therefore, while I share your discomfort with a relativistic use of the English language, I am not prepared to believe that we can settle disagreements about meaning by simply looking at "the dictionary".

[Nalates Urriah]

20 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

Good point. I would say that same about the many definitions and conceptions of the word god, which is why I never discuss the subject on the internet. What I mean and what someone else means are rarely the same. Almost never. 

I agree. The concept of GOD is widely varied. As are many other words. Which is why the question, 'What do you mean by ____?' is often the first response a person needs to make. But, just because a person has a different idea about something is no reason to avoid conversation. Experiencing diversity of thought is how we learn. Which is way free speech is such a threat to ideologues and politicians.

I'm learning Madelaine prefers to avoid discussing her philosophical beliefs and instead relates her experiences. She doesn't play games with it and remains intellectually honest. There is no reason for her to choose do anything other than what she wants. No Alinsky maneuvers. Just a Hey, this is me.

I tend to be curious about what people believe and why. Thus the questions.