What are some of your pet peeves?

[LittleMe Jewell]

39 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

Some of us are playing to accumulate the best wardrobe.  Some are trying to create the most attractive home.  Some want to play one-upmanship with lavish vehicles.  Some want to establish mini-empires where they have roles in world-dominance.  Some want to see how far they can explore sexual fantasies.  SL allows all of these and many more in a loosely-shaped game of imagination where we each play by our own rules and have different ideas about what constitutes success.  If that's not 43 Man Squamish, I don't know what it is.  😊

Yes, probably as close of a description as any.

 

/me is apparently playing some sort of 'just how much inventory can I accumulate' game.

[Ivanova Shostakovich]

   The size of my world varies with my mood and with my appetites. Think of it as the pulsing of a heart with occasional arrhythmia. Or think of it as the rising and falling of the moon, with its phases. The barest sliver of a fingernail moon is, in my own opinion, one of the most beautiful. And I think there's a lunar eclipse blood moon this month.

[Ivanova Shostakovich]

5 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Yes, probably as close of a description as any.

 

/me is apparently playing some sort of 'just how much inventory can I accumulate' game.

   It's probably time to go demo shopping again.

[Madelaine McMasters]

14 minutes ago, Ivanova Shostakovich said:

The barest sliver of a fingernail moon is, in my own opinion, one of the most beautiful.

https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/young-moon-visibility

[BelindaN]

I'm going for "Best Wardrobe"...........

Along with "Most time spent shopping".........😌🤔

[Ivanova Shostakovich]

   To stay on topic, I get annoyed by vendor board textures that use photo-sourced elements as part of an image, such as real eyelashes in a vendor trying to sell eyes, or, in an example that I'm looking at right now at Kustom9, real, photo-sourced hair and body imagery used in a vendor texture trying to sell a skin. The face is SL, but everything around it is unattainable in SL. It's trickery meant to fool the consumer.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

Thinking up some really good replies to a thread you are involved in, coming home, sitting down, logging in, then finding the thread got locked

 

[Selene Gregoire]

1 hour ago, AyelaNewLife said:

By these definitions, Minecraft is not a game.

While I do still think SL is a game, I do think it's obvious to all that it falls into the grey area between conventional video games and a chat program such as Skype. When you can come up with a reasonable (even if not perfect) justification for either classification... it kinda gets into "does it really make a difference?" territory.

Minecraft is a sandbox game. SL is just a sandbox.

Using words as adjectives makes a difference.

[Selene Gregoire]

22 minutes ago, BelindaN said:

I'm going for "Best Wardrobe"...........

Along with "Most time spent shopping".........😌🤔

I don't think LL does the yearbook thing. 

[kali Wylder]

 

26 minutes ago, BelindaN said:

I'm going for "Best Wardrobe"...........

Along with "Most time spent shopping".........😌🤔

3 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

I don't think LL does the yearbook thing. 

LL would classify superlatives as a dispute between members and they don't get involved in member disputes. (where's my tongue in cheek emoji?)

[Ivanova Shostakovich]

   Shopping at a collective marketing event, or any location for that matter, where the lag is so bad I need the lag meter displayed to tell me when it's ok to walk another twenty meters.

[Selene Gregoire]

3 hours ago, kali Wylder said:

 

LL would classify superlatives as a dispute between members and they don't get involved in member disputes. (where's my tongue in cheek emoji?)

[LittleMe Jewell]

Someone mentioned this just the other day - about Landmarks - but I'm mentioning it again because almost every store I've gone to this past week has landed me facing away from the store.  Most of the stores have also been redone, so apparently when they created their new LMs, they were all brain-dead.

Do store owners actually ever try the LMs that they send out?  

 

[Selene Gregoire]

38 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Someone mentioned this just the other day - about Landmarks - but I'm mentioning it again because almost every store I've gone to this past week has landed me facing away from the store.  Most of the stores have also been redone, so apparently when they created their new LMs, they were all brain-dead.

Do store owners actually ever try the LMs that they send out?  

 

I have noticed I've been facing away from the stores more often than not lately.

Way back when, I always made sure I was facing the direction I wanted the customers to be facing when they landed. And in using the LMs myself I always faced whatever it was I wanted the customer to see first when they landed. Perhaps today's creators/store owners don't have the same standards we had back then? 

[Syo Emerald]

I can handle not facing the store, but what really annoys me is terrible store design.

I experianced a bad example of that just yesterday. I arrived and had no clue where to go. There were a row of identical buildings along a street section, but no sign or anything in sight. Walking into the first building proved not all were filled with items...but also not totally empty, which meant I had to stand in each for a moment to wait if there is anything. When I finally found the "store", I quickly faced another problem: Everything was just randomly stuffed in there, no system of order. Everything was all over the place, randomly sprinkled between everything else. You would need to walk through the entire store to see all their lingerie products, for example.

At that point I gave up, opened the Marketplace again, looked up the name of the item I was looking for (I was originally hopeing to find a demo of it inworld, which turns out was a false hope) and used the search function to locate the item. Teleporting to it didn't worked, as that only forced me back to the LM point, so I resorted to cam shopping. I wouldn't have had any chance to find this item simply by checking out the store (not if I didn't plan on staying there for an hour).

And then people wonder why the Marketplace is so popular.

[BelindaN]

^^^^I agree with all of this about stores. 

First thing I do is look at the minimap to see where the green dots are.

Then fight through crowds of avis wanting someting for nothing.

But then......there's usually no logic as to how stuff is displayed. Especially the animation stores.....nightmare.

Just try finding a specific item.........and the clock spins round. For specifics I always search the Marketplace.

[LittleMe Jewell]

I do most of my shopping by camming around.  However, if there is no logic to where things are at, I likely won't spend much time looking - especially if the place is very large.  I'll just leave and spend my money elsewhere.  There is always another store and pretty much no item is worth me spending half an hour trying to find it (or even 10-15 solid minutes).

[AyelaNewLife]

Okay, pet peeve that's going to piss some people off - so please don't take this personally if it affects you.

I despise the depressingly prevalent attitude that many women have towards relationships with men. Namely, those that seem to reject the possibility of a male/female romantic or sexual relationship happening without an exchange of money. This isn't just an SL thing, it happens all too often in real life too.

Disclaimer: if a man and a woman both want that kind of a relationship, then that's great. That's honestly fantastic, when people with compatible desires and expectations find happiness together. But what I see far too often, both here and inworld, is that men will be looking for a 'conventional' relationship, and be told by many women that such a thing comes with a pricetag attached. It doesn't have to. (And no one deserves to be swarmed by a horde of hungry vultures that caught the scent of a few dollars.)

I'm struggling to phrase this without contradicting myself. I don't have a problem with sugar relationships or escorting (the difference is semantics) between two people that want that kind of thing. What I have a problem with is the large vocal minority of women that make it seem like that's the default setting. It's not. It teaches men that women are walking sex objects that you insert coins into, and it teaches other women that men are walking wallets that you insert sex coins into. It's become a vicious self-reinforcing cycle.

Our actions do not exist in a vacuum, and if the actions of a few women determined to roll back the clock on progress negatively affect the way men treat me and the respect I'm given then yeah, I'm going to call that out. And yes, as a woman from a STEM background I definitely do have a justified chip on my shoulder about this.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

24 minutes ago, AyelaNewLife said:

Okay, pet peeve that's going to piss some people off - so please don't take this personally if it affects you.

I despise the depressingly prevalent attitude that many women have towards relationships with men. Namely, those that seem to reject the possibility of a male/female romantic or sexual relationship happening without an exchange of money. This isn't just an SL thing, it happens all too often in real life too.

Disclaimer: if a man and a woman both want that kind of a relationship, then that's great. That's honestly fantastic, when people with compatible desires and expectations find happiness together. But what I see far too often, both here and inworld, is that men will be looking for a 'conventional' relationship, and be told by many women that such a thing comes with a pricetag attached. It doesn't have to. (And no one deserves to be swarmed by a horde of hungry vultures that caught the scent of a few dollars.)

I'm struggling to phrase this without contradicting myself. I don't have a problem with sugar relationships or escorting (the difference is semantics) between two people that want that kind of thing. What I have a problem with is the large vocal minority of women that make it seem like that's the default setting. It's not. It teaches men that women are walking sex objects that you insert coins into, and it teaches other women that men are walking wallets that you insert sex coins into. It's become a vicious self-reinforcing cycle.

Our actions do not exist in a vacuum, and if the actions of a few women determined to roll back the clock on progress negatively affect the way men treat me and the respect I'm given then yeah, I'm going to call that out. And yes, as a woman from a STEM background I definitely do have a justified chip on my shoulder about this.

You might want to explain to the others what STEM stands for. 

Since 95% of the guys in here have absolutely zero interest in supporting a woman in any way, except in some rather strenuous coitus positions, I'm not sure what your complaint is.

I'm sure men and women meet, date, and fall in love all the time in SL with no expectation of a monetary exchange.

On the other hand I've seen women complain about escorts in SL, saying they would never ever do such a thing, but they live on a big piece of land with a mansion paid for by yes,  their husband.

So, you are a strong independent woman with a career. Who would you choose as a mate? A strong independent man that also has a career, or a guy that says money and career isn't important to him, he just wants to meet someone, fall in love, get married and be a stay at home dad?

[Skell Dagger]

4 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

You might want to explain to the others what STEM stands for. 

Many of us 'others' - especially on this forum - are currently (or have been in the past) STEM ourselves*. For the rest there's always Google.

(For 20 years in my case.)

[BilliJo Aldrin]

21 hours ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

I do most of my shopping by camming around.  However, if there is no logic to where things are at, I likely won't spend much time looking - especially if the place is very large.  I'll just leave and spend my money elsewhere.  There is always another store and pretty much no item is worth me spending half an hour trying to find it (or even 10-15 solid minutes).

Yes, some stores are horrible. Especially the ones that give more thought to ambience rather than just setting stuff out in a clear orderly manner. Seriously right at the landing point there should be a teleport board with a directory. Or at least an....

elevator

[Talligurl]

On 12/16/2018 at 9:24 AM, IvyLarae said:

Just thought of another one. When a guy ims you and says something like this "You're hot. But you would look better if you weren't covered in tattoos and/or you wore a longer hair" Yeah because I TOTALLY asked for your unsolicited opinion on how a woman should look while I was store hopping. Come back to me when you have a Jason Mamoa looking avi and we'll talk! 😂😂😂

I usually get "you need  bigger boobs" I mean really? If I looked like this in RL you would think my boobs were perfect.

[BelindaN]

I resist gifts from guys because it would make me feel obligated, so I make it clear from the start. However I can't stop the guy I see sending me gifts from time to time, but I returned the favour at Christmas, when I enjoyed buying presents for him and 'others'.

What happened recently, and this was a first for me. I met a guy at Franks. We danced and had good IM chat. Later he invited me to the beach, but offered to pay for me to visit a 'private' beach. This I refused outright. I don't want or need gestures like that, no matter how well intentioned. So I guess that's a peeve!

 

 

[Donna Underall]

1 minute ago, BelindaN said:

I resist gifts from guys because it would make me feel obligated, so I make it clear from the start. However I can't stop the guy I see sending me gifts from time to time, but I returned the favour at Christmas, when I enjoyed buying presents for him and 'others'.

What happened recently, and this was a first for me. I met a guy at Franks. We danced and had good IM chat. Later he invited me to the beach, but offered to pay for me to visit a 'private' beach. This I refused outright. I don't want or need gestures like that, no matter how well intentioned. So I guess that's a peeve!

 

 

If I'm dating a guy and he wants to give me gifts I am fine with that.  I will give him gifts too.  But I don't like getting gifts from strangers.  Even those free red roses so many of them seem to have at the ready.  I always say thank you but always get rid of them.  And not just because they might have script inside.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 hours ago, AyelaNewLife said:

I despise the depressingly prevalent attitude that many women have towards relationships with men. Namely, those that seem to reject the possibility of a male/female romantic or sexual relationship happening without an exchange of money. This isn't just an SL thing, it happens all too often in real life too.

Do you think that this is more prevalent than it once was? Or is it the same old old? I used to be pretty in touch with gender-related issues in SL, but it's been a while, and I don't have a very clear sense of the recent trends, except that BDSM and D/s relationships are (unsurprisingly) much more prevalent (and in the open) than they were 8 or 9 years ago.

3 hours ago, AyelaNewLife said:

I don't have a problem with sugar relationships or escorting (the difference is semantics) between two people that want that kind of thing. What I have a problem with is the large vocal minority of women that make it seem like that's the default setting. It's not. It teaches men that women are walking sex objects that you insert coins into, and it teaches other women that men are walking wallets that you insert sex coins into. It's become a vicious self-reinforcing cycle.

Ok, this is a real question, and not a criticism or "gotcha" thing: I struggle with what I'm about to ask you myself, and I don't have anything like a definitive "answer" to offer up. I'm honestly interested in your view.

You distinguish between consensual "sugar relationships" and escorting, and what is, I guess, a less "formal" arrangement whereby women expect to receive remuneration for "services rendered."  I am, for what it's worth, entirely in agreement about these being legitimate, because they are consensual, and reflect, presumably, the woman's choice as to the way in which she wants to pursue relationships. The real evil is when women are compelled by social, political, legal, or economic necessity into exchanging sex (or whatever) for money: that's clearly not happening here, and especially not in SL.

But in your criticism of less formalized economic relationships between men and women, you reference what I have often seen termed the issue of "social harm": the idea that, however consensual and beneficial a particular behaviour might be on a personal level, it can cause "harm" on a broader, social level by normalizing or reinforcing stereotypes or particular kinds of power imbalances. For instance, a male Dom leashing a female sub in public is (especially in SL) pretty clearly consensual -- but is this public display of what can certainly look like a gendered power imbalance reinforcing certain social stereotypes about the places of men and women in society?

So, my question (finally): how, really, does the phenomenon that you criticize differ in its effects from more formalized economic arrangements such as sugar relationships or escorting? Do they look different? Wherein really lies the effective distinction?

Again, I'm asking this from a real place of perplexity: I don't have an answer, although god knows I've looked for one. In real terms, the difference lies in the formality of the exchange in the first two instances, which sets it off from other kinds of economic exchange and social interaction. But does that really mitigate the way that this reinforces stereotypes? I honestly don't know.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Scylla Rhiadra
missing word