Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Does it help to think of this in terms of "costs", for want of a better word?

So the cost of allowing everyone a perfect right to protect their RL info, up to and including lying when their back is against the wall about it, is that some people will get catfished. I'm sorry for that. I'm sure that some of them don't deserve it. 

But the alternative is a system in which people are somehow obliged to give RL information because another resident wants it to protect their feelings. Do I really need to explain where that could lead us? Do you seriously want that to be your SL?

We can't have both and it seems pretty clear to me that the safe, sane and sensible option is the first one. Yes, it means people will get hurt and for that I'm sorry. The cost of not having the state dictate who you can have sex with is that people will have affairs and cause hurt and damage that way. But what's the alternative?

As before, set and maintain your boundaries and remember the nature of where you are, and the TOS you signed. It's no good claiming this is your match.com because it's not match.com. It's Second Life and you do not have a right to anyone's data.

 

Edited by Amina Sopwith
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s look at this another way.

Person A is involved in a “relationship” with person B in SL. Not much personal information is shared beyond superficial things.  They become close over time. One day person B says I want your address person A, I want to see you in person. Person A refuses.

Who’s in the wrong there?

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a numpty question...…….

Is this RL gender issue a big deal in other VR games, like World of Warcraft, or whatever else is out there????  Or is it just SL???

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

A bunch of silliness

It is not a violation of TOS to ask for someone's RL information.  It is not a violation of TOS to make a continuing relationship dependent on sharing RL information.  Using nefarious means to secure RL information (and asking is hardly nefarious) and/or sharing that information with 3rd parties without permission (within the confines of SL) are against TOS - and not a single person has argued otherwise or that they are within their rights to do so.  Your entire TOS-based argument is as empty as your consistent assertion that people are claiming a "right" or "entitlement" or that the "deserve" to access RL information, and as empty as your insistence that YOU get to define what SL is and isn't, which you do over and over and over.  Each of us defines why were are in SL and what it means to us. 

Perhaps, as a self-identified millennial, you lack experience in long term, committed relationships, but questions such as " How much do you earn, Tolya? How many women have you slept with? Why did your last relationship end?" are part of the relationship development process, regardless of if it's SL or RL or WoW or whatever.  I may choose not to answer, I may choose to withdraw, I may choose to lie, or I may choose to tell the truth - and that is exactly the same in SL as in RL.  If all we're going to do is play greedy and pixel pork, then they're all pretty ridiculous questions to ask (although, the number of women question will come up among any group of guys who hang out together on a regular basis, and of course we all know everyone is lying when they answer, but I digress).  If we're on a first date (SL or RL) they're all pretty premature (although I can see asking the relationship ending if "speed dating", which happens in SL as well as RL), but if we've been together as a monogamous couple for a year, I'm betting they've all been answered by both of us, whether SL or RL.

And, please, stop with the histrionics of " have people really thought through the implications of this? Of there being an SL in which your private RL information becomes someone else's right to access just because of their feelings? Literally that?  " because literally nobody has said or implied any such thing, and it is truly odd that you keep insisting that is what people are saying.  People are free to ask whatever they want, to answer however they want (truth, lie, partial truth, or decline) and, just as in RL, sometimes there is simply no way to know if it's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and you just have to go on faith and other evidence.  By the way, top 10% of US single-income households, never counted but if only counting RL women then I'd guess 10-12, and mutual recognition of incompatible long term goals.  No I won't send you my W-2 to verify, nor will I give you a list or her contact info to verify.  You'll have to take my word for it, until we get engaged anyway 😛

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Does it help to think of this in terms of "costs", for want of a better word?

We all mostly accept that the economic system in SL is built upon the notion of caveat emptor.

It's interesting that, to a really great degree, that's true of relationships here as well.

The main difference, perhaps, is that the odds of malicious intent are much higher when you're screwed over a purchase. I think instances of malicious catfishing are very rare in SL

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Does it help to think of this in terms of "costs", for want of a better word?

So the cost of allowing everyone a perfect right to protect their RL info, up to and including lying when their back is against the wall about it, is that some people will get catfished. I'm sorry for that. I'm sure that some of them don't deserve it. 

But the alternative is a system in which people are somehow obliged to give RL information because another resident wants it to protect their feelings. Do I really need to explain where that could lead us? Do you seriously want that to be your SL?

We can't have both

Actually we can. Having both is the situation in which each individual user balances the cost to them of disclosure against the cost to them of non-disclosure. The balance of cost is going to be different for everyone, and everyone is therefore free to make their own individual choices about what they disclose, to whom, when, and with what conditions.

Which is, unsurprisingly, exactly the same as the current situation.

Edited by Matty Luminos
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Matty Luminos said:

Actually we can. Having both is the situation in which each individual user balances the cost to them of disclosure against the cost to them of non-disclosure. The balance of cost is going to be different for everyone, and everyone is therefore free to make their own individual choices about what they disclose, to whom, when,  and with what conditions.

Which is, unsurprisingly, exactly the same as the current situation.

I am in awe of your ability to say what I've been trying to say and do so in FAR fewer words.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, janetosilio said:

Let’s look at this another way.

Person A is involved in a “relationship” with person B in SL. Not much personal information is shared beyond superficial things.  They become close over time. One day person B says I want your address person A, I want to see you in person. Person A refuses.

Who’s in the wrong there?

You've hit on something I haven't seen in the little reading I've done in this thread, The Law of Unintended Consequences.

While I understand both sides of this argument, I wonder if the reason there are two sides is because of that law. Absent malice, I suspect that much of the hurt resulting from mismatched relationship expectations results from things getting more serious than at least one party expected.

How many people set boundaries for themselves, only to eventually discover they'd put them in the wrong place?

ETA: To expand on the "cost" idea, I think it's pretty common for our assessments of the costs and values of things we have and do to change over time. This makes any kind of calculus fraught with peril.

 

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

It is not a violation of TOS to ask for someone's RL information.  It is not a violation of TOS to make a continuing relationship dependent on sharing RL information.  

Nobody said it was. But it's also not a violation of TOS to lie completely about your sex (in fact, it's a violation to share that information about someone without their consent) and everyone in SL signed up to that. And it's not a violation for a reason: because you can protect your data as much as you like and by any means that someone's attempts to get it make necessary.

For heaven's sake, you can decline a relationship if they don't give you what you want, but you've no rights to the info. At all. 

 

36 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

your insistence that YOU get to define what SL is and isn't, which you do over and over and over.  Each of us defines why were are in SL and what it means to us.

On the contrary, I'm the one arguing for people's rights to keep their SL exactly as they want it to be. You're the one arguing for other people having to make sacrifices that they don't want to make to maintain your personal preferences. 

 

36 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Perhaps, as a self-identified millennial, you lack experience in long term, committed relationships,

Ok boomer.

 

36 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

questions such as " How much do you earn, Tolya? How many women have you slept with? Why did your last relationship end?" are part of the relationship development process, regardless of if it's SL or RL or WoW or whatever.  

The point was that asking a question does not give me a right to the requested information.

 

36 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

And, please, stop with the histrionics of " have people really thought through the implications of this? Of there being an SL in which your private RL information becomes someone else's right to access just because of their feelings? Literally that?  " because literally nobody has said or implied any such thing, and it is truly odd that you keep insisting that is what people are saying.  

It is literally what people have been saying and the argument which I am refuting. They have at times put it a bit more floridly, because it sounds just that stupid when you come down to it, but it is what they have been saying.

Perhaps I should clarify that they probably mean moral right rather than LL-sanctioned right? (Though it's worth remembering that this whole debate started because someone asked if LL would voice verify anyone, to which I replied no, why would they?) But as long as you're in SL, you're agreeing to their TOS and if you agree that people can protect the information they don't owe you then yes, they've got the perfect right to lie if you try to press them. You agreed to that. Their moral right to privacy trumps your moral right never to be made to feel gay (because let's be honest, that's what this debate is always really about).

36 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

People are free to ask whatever they want, to answer however they want (truth, lie, partial truth, or decline) 

Wait. You've just agreed that people are free to lie when asked about info they want to protect. So why are you arguing with me? 

36 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

 By the way, top 10% of US single-income households, never counted but if only counting RL women then I'd guess 10-12, and mutual recognition of incompatible long term goals.  

This literally makes no sense but as it's clearly completely irrelevant to the discussion, I feel fine in ignoring it.

ETA: Oh hang on, I've just realised what you were doing. I was right, it's not relevant and like the rest of your post, suggests that you missed the point completely. Luckily, I explained it a few paragraphs up. You're welcome.

Edited by Amina Sopwith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, janetosilio said:

Let’s look at this another way.

Person A is involved in a “relationship” with person B in SL. Not much personal information is shared beyond superficial things.  They become close over time. One day person B says I want your address person A, I want to see you in person. Person A refuses.

Who’s in the wrong there?

 

/me raises his hand like a good pupil.  "Neither, Miss Janetosillo?"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

More silliness that indicates she hasn't even read what she herself wrote

Ok boomer.

This literally makes no sense but as it's clearly completely irrelevant to the discussion, I feel fine in ignoring it.

Sorry, junior, I'm not a boomer.  Assumptions are silly.

Actually, it makes complete sense (I'm answering your questions) and it IS relevant to the discussion, as you were trying to make a point that someone on SL wouldn't answer such questions.  I demonstrated that people can choose to do so, as well as that they can answer as and how much they choose.  We all draw our own boundaries - you can guard yours as much as you like, but I'm free to ask if I may come inside (even if it may be inappropriate given the circumstances)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Their moral right to privacy trumps your moral right never to be made to feel gay (because let's be honest, that's what this debate is always really about).

Interesting. This reading of "your former lover is really a woman" never even occurred to me.

Possibly because I don't experience moral panic at the idea of "gay," but maybe more  because the person I was having sex with had a p***s (albeit, a sculptie one). Whatever their RL gender/biological sex, I was definitely having heterosexual sex with them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Sorry, junior, I'm not a boomer.  Assumptions are silly.

You may not be, but you deserve it anyway, by virtue of your condescending "as a self-identified millennial, you lack experience in long term, committed relationships."

Boomer.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Actually, it makes complete sense (I'm answering your questions) and it IS relevant to the discussion, as you were trying to make a point that someone on SL wouldn't answer such questions. 

No. As I explicitly explained in the post you're quoting, the point was that nobody is obliged to answer those questions. And just because you did doesn't mean anyone else had to. I said that too.

We've now got you both failing to grasp simple points made explicit and short, and dismissing my post as rubbish before going on to apparently agree with me on the lying point.

Scylla? Is there any point? I trust your judgement. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

You may not be, but you deserve it anyway, by virtue of your condescending "as a self-identified millennial, you lack experience in long term, committed relationships."

Boomer.

OK, commie, maybe you should go back and accurately quote me.  I prefaced that with "Perhaps" - and given her positions and how she is defending them, it's a reasonable inference.

(Yes, I know you're not really a commie)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

I know you're not really a commie

And I know you're not really a boomer, but play nice with Amina, or I'll come over and have words with you.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

 

No. As I explicitly explained in the post you're quoting, the point was that nobody is obliged to answer those questions. And just because you did doesn't mean anyone else had to. I said that too.

We've now got you both failing to grasp simple points made explicit and short, and dismissing my post as rubbish before going on to apparently agree with me on the lying point.

Scylla? Is there any point? I trust your judgement. 

I've grasped every point you've attempted to make, you simply cannot accept that your points are indeed rubbish and myopic to boot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

And I know you're not really a boomer, but play nice with Amina, or I'll come over and have words with you.

Yes, Ma'am.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

No. As I explicitly explained in the post you're quoting, the point was that nobody is obliged to answer those questions. And just because you did doesn't mean anyone else had to. I said that too.

We've now got you both failing to grasp simple points made explicit and short, and dismissing my post as rubbish before going on to apparently agree with me on the lying point.

Scylla? Is there any point? I trust your judgement.

/me carefully raises her head over the parapet.

I may be missing nuances here, but I don't think the two of you are actually very far apart. I think you are differing mostly in emphasis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Their moral right to privacy trumps your moral right never to be made to feel gay (because let's be honest, that's what this debate is always really about).

It's also a really silly requirement, because getting turned on by performing or watching heterosexual sex (even pixel sex) in itself proves they're not gay. 

On the other hand it can uncover some repressed bisexuality which, especially for someone raised in a culture of homophobia, can be unsettling.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

/me carefully raises her head over the parapet.

I may be missing nuances here, but I don't think the two of you are actually very far apart. I think you are differing mostly in emphasis?

In a way that's accurate, she's just arguing an extreme subpoint, and I'm trying to argue her closer to what Matty said far more eloquently than I.  Since Matty has essentlally said all that need be said, I'll bow out.  Besides, Amina's a nice person

For a millenial 😛

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its safest to assume everyone on the other side of the screen is a guy, if this bothers you, don't bump pixels.😛

 

We must all remember the rules of the internet.

the men are men

the women are men

the kids are federal agents

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When @Tolya Ugajin is the least awful person in a thread, and he stands for almost everything that I'm against, that's my indication that this is a place I don't want to be anymore and a group I have no desire to be associated with. 

 

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is even safer to not make any assumption whatsoever and remember that what you see on the screen is nothing more than how the person behind the Avatar has chosen to represent themself.

Some do so for RP purposes. Some don't. Of those that don't, they have their reasons.

Heck you even have those like myself that tend to use our avatars to convey our current mood - be it for RP purposes (a visible warning of what we may be looking for, among many reasons) or a general warning of our current state of mind.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

When @Tolya Ugajin is the least awful person in a thread, and he stands for almost everything that I'm against, that's my indication that this is a place I don't want to be anymore and a group I have no desire to be associated with. 

 

I'm the least awful?  Well then I must try harder!  😛

It's likely we do stand for a lot of the same things - it's just arguing about things we agree on is no fun.  Even when I call people "myopic" and their points "idiotic", I truly do not mean personal offense.  I completely separate a person's positions from their worth as a human being.  Scylla and I used to get into huge brawls years ago, for instance, but I still thinks she's a wonderful human being and in my top 10 favorite Canadians.

Don't go over a disagreement on here - just move on and if someone is being truly awful, mute them.  If you withdraw, you let the truly awful people win and, eventually, dominate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...