Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 160 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

All I'm saying is that some people play SL differently than you do, and incorporate RL elements within SL fantasy ones. There's a whole world beyond yours and the way you choose to play SL.  

Why do people keep explaining this to me as if I don't realise? I know that. My point is that to protect everyone's right to have as much RL as they wish in SL, you need to have the right to absolute privacy without compromise. Because some people's SL is to be accepted entirely, in their whole inworld self, as how they present. That's the starting point for us all. Everything beyond that is a gift.

I can get that people might not agree that this is right (although it is), but I can't understand why so many individuals seem to think I don't understand the concept of personal ways to play SL. That's precisely what I'm defending: people's rights to define their SL as far as they like, regardless of how much others are sharing.

If you (generic you) have an expectation/sense of entitlement that people will compromise their own way to play SL to fit yours, ie by proving their gender when you want them to, then you're the one not respecting other people's ways to play. They don't owe you their RL just because you choose to incorporate bits of yours in your own way of playing. They get to define their own SL by holding back whatever they want. It may not be a nice thing to do, but it's their right and we all agreed to that.

Really, I understand the idea that everyone plays SL differently. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

I do despise when anyone else tries to tell me how I should think or feel or approach situations... especially when I haven’t asked for their advice. 

I realise you've probably muted me, but on the off chance...the debate has not been all about you personally and if you share a story that perfectly illustrates potential and very common pitfalls of SL, be prepared for people to discuss those pitfalls and how they might be avoided in general. I really mean it gently when I say that it's not all about you. 

I do find that too much investment in someone's RL information is often not linked to anything positive. I don't think you're a stalker or an arsonist, but tbh, after you've received a barrage of abuse related to a discussion about online and offline information, it does make you kind of glad that the other person doesn't know any more than they already do.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does age verified. An avatar is not able to speak and has no voice !! This is complet non sens. I always take it as a joke. it is like age verifiage. Yes I have an age. Sometimes I see an avatarof few month telling I am over of 18 and in fact the real human body is 45. Do you think such information helps. It add lot of fun or confusion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously behind each & every RL screen is either a leggy model with perfect hair and breasts, or a tanned muscular hunk with a six pack...………..

Whereas the same group in RL would probably more resemble a pensioner travel club.

So what? SL is a pretend world, and can be totally immersive and relaxing if you don't look beyond the pixels. That's how I chose to play SL...….(OK, play doesn't quite describe what I do here)..…….9_9

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lureo said:

What does age verified.

Many years ago, Second Life had an actual process to verify with RL documents, that you were an adult. It was necessary to be able to visit sims rated A. Many people chose to state in their profiles, that they went through this verification process. Since this verification process does not exist anymore (and hasn't existed for many years), the statement is obviously pointless now.

3 hours ago, Lureo said:

An avatar is not able to speak and has no voice !!

Are you joking? Nobody thinks the avatar itself has a voice. But we are all human beings behind the avatar and those can use voice chat and that is what this entire thread is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Ok, so . . . true story.

About 11 years ago or so I was, for a period of about 6 months, engaged in a romantic and sexual relationship with a "man" in Second Life. Said relationship involved a reasonable amount of in-world sex, which was pretty much exclusively of the vanilla heteronormative variety. On occasions, these sessions of in-world sex also involved the use of voice; my lover seemed pretty unequivocally male in ever respect.

About 8 months after that relationship ended (how it ended is not relevant here), my former lover (with whom I had remained in contact; we moved in many of the same social circles) approached me and confided to me that "he" was in fact a lesbian woman in RL. Subsequently, that former lover switched over to a female avatar, and began a lesbian relationship with a mutual friend. She was occasionally on voice: she was pretty unequivocally a female.

So . . . was I involved in a heterosexual relationship for that 6 month period?

Or a lesbian one?

I'll answer a question with a question - if you had an ongoing RL relationship with a person with a weiner and then that person transitioned to a person with a vajayjay, what would it be called?

Because that's the relationship you had.  It was simply a pixel parts instead of real parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Amina Sopwith said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

* that America's views and laws on gun ownership are completely underpants on head insane and comparing them to LL voice morphers is a ridiculous false equivalence, not least because morphers work with SL in a way that guns don't really work with furniture;

* that I already made the point, twice, that it doesn't matter why LL provides morphers, it still proves that they really don't mind if you use them and have created a world where anyone can have one;

* that this is the level of debate I've come to expect from you and I find it neither edifying nor entertaining. So while I don't mute people, I'm probably going to read selectively until it's wabbit, I mean duck, season. If you wouldn't mind helping me out by not quoting or tagging me in the meantime, I would appreciate it.

 

I truly hope you can hear my eyes rolling at your juvenile rant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

I hope the idiot who introduced “catch the gay” into this thread feels very bad about it now.

/me summons a cast : "May the catchthegaysayer sneeze 'Woohoo!"s instead of "Hatchoo!"s.

That'll teach him. Or her. Or them.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Amina Sopwith said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

* that America's views and laws on gun ownership are completely underpants on head insane and comparing them to LL voice morphers is a ridiculous false equivalence, not least because morphers work with SL in a way that guns don't really work with furniture;

* that I already made the point, twice, that it doesn't matter why LL provides morphers, it still proves that they really don't mind if you use them and have created a world where anyone can have one;

* that this is the level of debate I've come to expect from you and I find it neither edifying nor entertaining. So while I don't mute people, I'm probably going to read selectively until it's wabbit, I mean duck, season. If you wouldn't mind helping me out by not quoting or tagging me in the meantime, I would appreciate it.

 

I'm going to patiently try and explain what you cannot seem to grasp.

I did not compare guns to morphers - to pretend that I did is ridiculous.  Your completely extraneous rant on US gun laws is an irrelevant emotional aside that serves as nothing beyond an attempt to distract and virtue signal.  I compared the DECISION to give away guns to the DECISION to give away morphers, which you have indeed repeatedly said "proves" LL's stance on deceiving people.  I only used guns because I could not come up with a way to work in the more common 10 speed bike give away.  At any rate, businesses do not make decisions in such a way that doing X can in any way "prove" to an outsider what their position on Y is.  In all likelihood, some marketing person thought it would be a good add-on and never once considered, nor did anyone else, how it would be interpreted.  It doesn't "prove" anything at all.  You merely grasp at it as "proof" because you are desperate to prove your point.

I don't believe anyone has claimed LL DOESN'T want morphers used to deceive people.  LL in most likelihood doesn't care one way or another.  You keep harping on this point that it "proves" something and lashing out at anyone who offers even a slightly different view because you take any disagreement as an attack and devolve into childish insults.  Which is what you've done here.

Now you feel free to mute me all you want - doing so would say a lot more about you than about me.  In fact, it would do a fine job of demonstrating I am correct about you.  I will quote whomever I wish - the fact that LL allows it clearly proves that they don't mind if I quote someone who doesn't wish to be quoted. Your conduct hasn't earned you any consideration on my part for what you would appreciate.

Have a lovely day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

I'll answer a question with a question - if you had an ongoing RL relationship with a person with a weiner and then that person transitioned to a person with a vajayjay, what would it be called?

 

franknfurter.jpg.6f67a6cb4c290c5ab28dd859164ead30.jpg

Frank "Nowiener" Furt(h)er.

Edited by TDD123
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Amina Sopwith said:
15 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

All I'm saying is that some people play SL differently than you do, and incorporate RL elements within SL fantasy ones. There's a whole world beyond yours and the way you choose to play SL.  

Why do people keep explaining this to me as if I don't realise? I know that. My point is that to protect everyone's right to have as much RL as they wish in SL, you need to have the right to absolute privacy without compromise. Because some people's SL is to be accepted entirely, in their whole inworld self, as how they present. That's the starting point for us all. Everything beyond that is a gift.

I can get that people might not agree that this is right (although it is), but I can't understand why so many individuals seem to think I don't understand the concept of personal ways to play SL. That's precisely what I'm defending: people's rights to define their SL as far as they like, regardless of how much others are sharing.

If you (generic you) have an expectation/sense of entitlement that people will compromise their own way to play SL to fit yours, ie by proving their gender when you want them to, then you're the one not respecting other people's ways to play. They don't owe you their RL just because you choose to incorporate bits of yours in your own way of playing. They get to define their own SL by holding back whatever they want. It may not be a nice thing to do, but it's their right and we all agreed to that.

Our right to privacy is always there -- anywhere we go, be it in RL or SL, we can choose if we want to share anything about our lives or simply keep our mouth shut. I'm not sure what it is you are wanting...a huge DEFAULT declaration of 'ultimate privacy' rules @ the login screen? How would this protect you? Because people can change this at anytime (either by another revealing facts from RL, or by you letting down your guard and doing so).
In other words, the choice will always remain between two people interacting -- no outside rule or declaration of the absolutely correct 'default mode' can change this fact.

I don't get your last paragraph at all. Negotiating RL vs SL aspects within SL does not mean one person would have an "expectation/sense of entitlement that people will comprise their own way to play SL to fit yours". It only means that each person has the right to state what they want and if the other does not want something they deem as vital they simply say 'adios' -- this is what negotiation is.
You seem to want the absolute right to hold 'your way', your 'ultimate way', over someone's head -- to be the RIGHT one, the 'default', declared by some outside rule. In reality there is no right or wrong regarding this issue. The situation either meets both people's needs or it doesn't, and if it doesn't they part ways with no one to blame.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I couldn't do VR myself,at least not by myself in a room.. I jump out of my skin when someone just shows up next to me when I have headphones on.. My little brother and older sister used to love to sneak up on me when I had headphones on..Plus my husband just loved doing that also..

I snuk up on my husband one time to get revenge when he was at the computer with headphones on.. I just snuk up and lightly tapped him on the shoulder and it scared him so bad that he swung  backwards,hit me in the shoulder and the jaw.. I ended up with a bruised shoulder and jaw..

He felt so terrible about it,I felt terrible about him feeling terrible..Then having to tell the doctors and nurses what happened and getting them to believe us.. it was just a bad idea all the way around..hehehehe

I wouldn't know how i would react if someone snuk up on me with a VR set on.. I'd probably rip the computer off the stand from coming out of my skin..hehehehe

Oh no, who knew the dangers of our electronic lives!
I about had a heart attack when one of my cats brushed up against my leg during a VR session -- there was at first a sense that the physical touch from my cat was coming from inside the game. I mean VR is already more real than I can take at times without that..lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

In reality there is no right or wrong regarding this issue. The situation either meets both people's needs or it doesn't, and if it doesn't they part ways with no one to blame.

I'm unsure why Amina is deliberately misunderstood : mutual agreement means nothing if one of the parties sticks to their right of privacy without consulting the other. That is a risk you always will take when getting 'intimate'  with someone in SL. And LL or their TOS in no way obliges anybody to go beyond that.

That' s her whole point.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

I'm unsure why Amina is deliberately misunderstood : mutual agreement means nothing if one of the parties sticks to their right of privacy without consulting the other. That is a risk you always will take when getting 'intimate'  with someone in SL. And LL or their TOS in no way obliges anybody to go beyond that.

That' s her whole point.

I don't believe she is the one being deliberately misunderstood.  Everyone arguing with her (including myself) has agreed to the point you (and there was someone else about 500 pages ago, I forget who) make very succinctly.  However, she continuously goes well beyond that, accusing those who disagree with her of claiming "entitlement" to someone else's RL information, when in fact all we are claiming is we are "entitled" to ASK such questions (and nowhere does LL state we are not entitled to ASK) and then we are "entitled" to act on that person's response as we deem appropriate, and we are "entitled" (GASP) to feel hurt or betrayed if we are deceived.  She also goes on and on about her supposed "proof" of her point (which has been repeatedly conceded) and insistence that SL is all imaginary, and that (in so many words, despite her later claim she is not) that we should approach SL in the same way she does.  When as disparate people as myself, Beth, and Luna all interpret her to be saying just that, perhaps she should try and presenting her case in a way that we all don't "misinterpret" - if indeed we are.

This whole debate could have ended 100 pages ago (I'm exaggerating) had she just let it go when her various sparring partners not only agreed to the words you are putting into her mouth, but in some cases, (including my own) even apologized for allowing the debate to get out of hand.

At any rate, if she would cease poking the bears, she'd find the bears would stop growling back at her.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

I'm unsure why Amina is deliberately misunderstood : mutual agreement means nothing if one of the parties sticks to their right of privacy without consulting the other. That is a risk you always will take when getting 'intimate'  with someone in SL. And LL or their TOS in no way obliges anybody to go beyond that.

That' s her whole point.

Nobody is, at least I'm not, deliberately misunderstanding Amina.
If one party is pressuring for more RL information the way to deal with this is for the other party to simply say "no, I don't share RL information here". It's very easy...we don't need to appeal to some sort of ultimate default to support a reality that is already there by virtue of keeping one's mouth shut.
Appealing to an outside authority is a chickenshirt way of dealing with others. Like saying one is right because the Bible, one's parent, or one's country deems it so. It's an attempt to place oneself as the ultimate authority -- above or on top of another.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

I'm unsure why Amina is deliberately misunderstood 

I think it's because this is, understandably, a very emotive topic. I did try to be kind about it. People are upset by the concept and the ways that their behaviour can be perceived, but that doesn't make it wrong. 

But I'm getting very tired of repeating myself now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

If one party is pressuring for more RL information the way to deal with this is for the other party to simply say "no, I don't share RL information here".

That' s your idea of fairness. I can still lie about it. You will never be guaranteed I won' t. And if I do .. you cannot use LL or it' s TOS to confront me.

No opinion about fairness in relationships will change that.

I.e. I don' t need to be honest to you. I just need you to play along.

Edited by TDD123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

That' s your idea of fairness. I can still lie about it. You will never be guaranteed I won' t. And if I do .. you cannot use LL or it' s TOS to confront me.

No opinion about fairness in relationships will change that.

I.e. I don' t need to be honest to you. I just need you to play along.

Cam removes all doubts ;)  Or you can meet them in RL. 

"I don' t need to be honest to you. I just need you to play along." seems like a "richardish" approach, but there certainly are people who approach SL that way.  Certainly you cannot catch them with any certainty, but it still makes them richards.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tolya Ugajin said:

...  still makes them richards.

Sure .. Di...err..  Richards will be Richards.

Even if a Ruth is behind it .. ;)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"richards"?  That's a new one for me, Tolya.

I must say, on the whole, I am enjoying this thread.  I think Scylla's ahead on points.

EDIT:  Ohhhhh...RICHARDS.  Got it.

Edited by Lindal Kidd
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

"richards"?  That's a new one for me, Tolya.

I must say, on the whole, I am enjoying this thread.  I think Scylla's ahead on points.

EDIT:  Ohhhhh...RICHARDS.  Got it.

Scylla is always ahead on points.  A: She's smart, wise, and educated, an uncommon convergence.  B: Even when she disagrees with your point, she does so in a very nice way, a skill I may one day master, but not today.

I already received the "watch your language" email from some random Linden a couple weeks ago, including the "you can't come up with creative ways to get around content blocking, that's naughty!" admonition.  So, being the richard I am when confronted with stupidity, I am going out of my way to come up with creative ways to use mild profanity and thumbing my nose at conformity.

Edited by Tolya Ugajin
ETA: Maybe we should all declare Scylla the Forum Foster Mom, for all us misfit foundling forumites
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voice Verification is a thing for people looking for RL love in a world of digital fantasy 🙂

If thats their thing, I see no harm in it.....

Its a big multiverse !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the term needs a change from "Voice verfified'  into ' Voice verifiable on demand" .

ETA : Which still doesn' t say anything about the veracity of the person you are intimate with in SL.

Edited by TDD123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Appealing to an outside authority is a chickenshirt way of dealing with others. Like saying one is right because the Bible, one's parent, or one's country deems it so. It's an attempt to place oneself as the ultimate authority -- above or on top of another.

Sigh. It's not an outside authority. It's the rules of the world that we are choosing to inhabit, that we explicitly signed up to accept. If we don't like it, we don't have to be here. This is a false equivalence. 

I really feel like I've just reached the point of cycling through the same points over and over and it's giving me a bit of an existential crisis. I also see Tolya made a point of quoting me not once but twice after I asked him not to (no reason he couldn't say the same things without the quotes), and against my better judgement I looked at the first one; just another condescending insult, surprise surprise. 

I'm not saying I'm going to quit the thread, but I don't really get any pleasure from increasingly mean-spirited and repetitive internet ding-dongs. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 160 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...