Jump to content

Second Life Lamentation


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

You actually want people to sign up for this as a condition of entering SL? To be done if they have a dispute with anyone? The Lindens have to act as mediators in every relationship and RP dispute? How would you even enforce it, or these "rulings"?

And for what? So you can have your pound of flesh when someone disappears on you?

This is actually a completely separate topic from the "what the heck  just happened to my starry friends, they were just behind/ahead of me a minute ago and I'm worried," topic. 

Yes, there should be certain things we all agree to, and one of those is that if we have a dispute we can't settle ourselves, that we'll involve someone who settles disputes without resorting to unliateral extralegal special- and psy-ops warfare. We'll do this for our individual wellness as well as for larger societal wellness. And when we look at successful human societies everywhere, it's no surprise that they have traditions for handling commonplace human affairs rather than resounding silence, gaping vacuums, or punitive "justice" without due process, whatever that means in terms of the deep and universal needs of the community served.

Edited by Chroma Starlight
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Chroma Starlight said:

Make it part of the terms of service. You agree to binding arbitration of a mediator. The three of you sit face to face in a room, make your statements, and then they give their ruling for how the peace will be maintained. It's really simple. Any good human community has this in some form. If things are really bad, you do have one further option, which is an appeal to a tribunal of mediators, and their ruling is final. 

This is absolutely insane. 

Consider a situation like this; I once had someone who rented the parcel next to mine who I made friends with. We got on just fine as neighbors for awhile until he began sending me inappropriate messages. I told him as such, and then blocked him when they continued. 

He went out of his way to harass me and try to get me to talk to him to 'give him closure' and 'just listen to his apology'. I wasn't going to do either, I had no long term friendship with this man and did not owe him anything. But he still erected bothersome stuff on the edge of my parcel, or sent me gifts from the marketplace from alts with his messages in the gift field. He would then redeliver these over, and over, and over. 

Each time I made changes to my notifications and de-rendered his signs. 

If I had agreed to 'moderation' that could have been one more avenue for harassment. I can think of much worse abusers or harassers who would welcome a system like this. Why in the world would I agree to something that forced me to sit down down with someone I've cut contact with? Then what happens if the moderator insists that I wasn't fair for cutting him off? Do I just let him continue to harass me?

This sort of thing would never happen, but I want you to really consider how easily abused forced interpersonal moderation is. 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Bitterthorn said:

This is absolutely insane. 

Consider a situation like this; I once had someone who rented the parcel next to mine who I made friends with. We got on just fine as neighbors for awhile until he began sending me inappropriate messages. I told him as such, and then blocked him when they continued. 

He went out of his way to harass me and try to get me to talk to him to 'give him closure' and 'just listen to his apology'. I wasn't going to do either, I had no long term friendship with this man and did not owe him anything. But he still erected bothersome stuff on the edge of my parcel, or sent me gifts from the marketplace from alts with his messages in the gift field. He would then redeliver these over, and over, and over. 

Each time I made changes to my notifications and de-rendered his signs. 

If I had agreed to 'moderation' that could have been one more avenue for harassment. I can think of much worse abusers or harassers who would welcome a system like this. Why in the world would I agree to something that forced me to sit down down with someone I've cut contact with? Then what happens if the moderator insists that I wasn't fair for cutting him off? Do I just let him continue to harass me?

This sort of thing would never happen, but I want you to really consider how easily abused forced interpersonal moderation is. 

I should have clarified-- it should only go to that stage if both parties agree to arbitrate the case, and then it would be binding. But in this case, that's just harassment you are describing; after all, "no means no," and you said to them literally that they must not contact you, and you unfriended them, you removed them from your group, and you told them to go away, and you maybe even blocked them. IF you actually did any or all of those things, then that's getting into serial creep terrain when they're still reaching out to you directly like that, unprompted by any contact or action from you, and so, here, an abuse report should suffice to resolve the difficulty, no? Under that circumstance, isn't a mediator just going to say to them "Look, I'm keeping the peace, which means the following for you..."  and have some easy programmatic way of enforcing that? They can appeal that to a tribunal if they need more of an explanation or some accommodation.

Edited by Chroma Starlight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they all found someone special and put all that magically deliciousness Wiff each other..

I know gettin Magically delicious wiff someone tends to sometimes shed some friends.. hehehe

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Chroma Starlight said:

I should have clarified-- it should only go to that stage if both parties agree to arbitrate the case, and then it would be binding. 

  1. No one would agree.
  2. If this was a Linden "court", they would (rightly) ban both parties and walk away.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:
  1. No one would agree.
  2. If this was a Linden "court", they would (rightly) ban both parties and walk away.

Well, you don't know that. I would agree, I'll bet there are others who would prefer some human structure to none

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Eddy Vortex said:

Not gonna lie, I actually sang along to this.

Me too!  Mom taught us that when we were little so as I was digging for it today, I played it for her and we were singing it together.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I used his inheritance to help him get a home an hour away from me. I figured that was close enough to keep an eye on him, but far enough to keep him out of my hair.

Have I ever mentioned I'm an idiot?

Do idiots deserve pity?

Who? Snugs or Dave?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chroma Starlight said:

Search me, but we need to find a way to nerf the weapons others forge out of their "inability" to handle true free expression in public-listed communities on the mainland continent. Or we need you to have a moderator who will agree with you that I must stop talking about Snowden, or my gender. Then I don't just have to take your word on it, which is good, because by this point you've established yourself to have no personal integrity whatsoever as a gaslighter and a liar. 

 

OFOL Emily shut up.

I used to know someone who got themselves permabanned from SL a couple of years ago for behaving the same way you are. So far, the only real difference is, you haven't gone all capslock. Yet.

You can't change the past. Let it go. What you can control is YOUR future. But you won't be in control as long as you don't let go of the past. That is not to say don't ever think about it again or mull it over to pick it apart for anything you might have missed but you have got to stop with the pity party stuff. It's a huge turn off and people aren't going to listen to it.

 

Edited by Silent Mistwalker
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chroma Starlight said:

Well, you don't know that. I would agree, I'll bet there are others who would prefer some human structure to none

Agree to let LL decide if someone needs to be punished for ghosting you? Riiiiiiight. 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

May I be the neutral third party judge in this utopian system? I'd take @Tari Landar as my co-equal emergency backup judge. Given the prospect of a day in arbitration with the two of us, I think most parties would find a way to work it out amongst themselves.

... sets both judges on fire

Yep. I think that about takes care of that.

 

🤭

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chroma Starlight said:

Therapists can't resolve the situation because, as I said, it's not about me. I didn't invent this situation, I didn't want it. All my co-creative formal gestures were toward reconciliation or at least peace, but theirs were toward wrongful crucifixion and it crossed bright red lines that I think require actual censure rather than trying to scapegoat me. It's about these larger historical themes running roughshod over all our lives, now. You can't pin it all on the innocent kirin, it just doesn't make sense. I think this is a black swan situation and your home-spun wisdom is at a loss to deal with the realities of high-level conspirators such as these.

No, it IS about you. You're just trying to deflect by painting it as a general issue, when everyone else has no real issue with it - you refuse to acknowledge that. Same with trying to belittle me, or outright insulting others for simply stating their opinion. I believe the irony is lost on you.

However. As we like to say in Germany: You can lead a horse to the water - but it needs to drink on it's own.
You are free to accept or refuse whatever I say. It's your life, not mine. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Sukubia Scarmon said:

As we like to say in Germany: You can lead a horse to the water - but it needs to drink on it's own.

I recently officiated the wedding of a cousin, infamous for being stubborn. His long suffering fiancee has learned how to manage him, usually by getting him to think that her reasonable ideas are actually his. During the ceremony, I riffed off the couple's widely known tension filled dynamic by saying to her...

"You can lead a horse to water, but they're very hard to drown."

Judging from the laughter and the nodding heads, I believe I hit a nerve.

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Sukubia Scarmon said:

No, it IS about you. You're just trying to deflect by painting it as a general issue, when everyone else has no real issue with it - you refuse to acknowledge that. Same with trying to belittle me, or outright insulting others for simply stating their opinion. I believe the irony is lost on you.

I mean, if I had at any point been able to actually just air my side of things and get a disposition, it would have been settled. Yes, that's my need, but I think the need is a universal one, and I can say that to you having gone through it, and how. There is nothing wrong with people having some basic human needs and society meeting those needs as they appear. I feel as if deflection is the exact opposite of what this is, this is engagement. I don't intend to be attached to this issue forever as may have been intended, but I feel like I deserve at least one full articulate response at any point since it happened because something terrible was done to this system, and one has to do something with that energy; transform it, absorb it, something. You can't just strap someone down and waterboard them by preventing some sort of resolution. That'd be like chaining a woman to a desk with her hands just an inch short of a full glass of water and then letting her slowly die of thirst while watching from afar. Ideally your society has a ritual for accommodating the situation; to not have that would be a cruel and slightly unwell approach to community. Here, it was like all my friends boarded a jetliner together and it crashed and killed them all at once. That's a lot of ghosts. And someone understood what they were doing when they designed this adjudication bespoke for me. It's the sort of event that that's so remarkable that it's a story that has to be told at least once

 

Edited by Chroma Starlight
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chroma Starlight said:

I mean, if I had at any point been able to actually just air my side of things and get a disposition, it would have been settled. Yes, that's my need, but I think the need is a universal one,

This thread alone should make it clear, it isn't universal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

This thread alone should make it clear, it isn't universal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

The point isn't that I'd win on popular appeal to the mediator. The point is that at any stage in the process I'd have been allowed to state my side fully and aloud. It seems implausible to say that a process to adjudicate is a fair one if there's nothing on my side of the balance scale of justice to have been considered against whatever they've brought. It doesn't even matter if the evidence is beside the point. If you don't have any point to give testimony about what happened and it's something big, something important to you like your access to your community and all your friends, then you're going to feel like you have endured an injustice, because you have. As a final rhetorical thought: What kind of model society is this that summarily executes longstanding members from amongst its denizens without letting them even speak first before being strapped down to the butcher block?

So I suppose that I would say the symbolism of all this stuff is meaningful, and it applies broadly and deeply to people here whether or not they realize it. I just think that it's a missed opportunity to make our society here more golden by contriving some way to make people listen, and to encourage kind impartiality. 
 

Edited by Chroma Starlight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Why did i ever unblock someone out of curiosity of a "Hmm, a thread with over 100 posts, i wonder what they are babbling about?" 

Neener neener, serves you right for being nosy!! ;)

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...