Virtual Secrets

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

BAD DRAMA...A way of relating to the world in which a person consistently overreacts to or greatly exaggerates the importance of benign events.

Typically "drama" is used by people who are chronically bored or those who seek attention.

People who engage in "drama" will usually attempt to drag other people into their dramatic state, as a way of gaining attention or making their own lives more exciting.

I would add another variable to the drama-seeker. They have a strong need to have an enemy, and seek with others to find an enemy and gang up on the designated scapegoat. This seems to be the only respite they have for feeling good about themselves -- by putting another down and assigning to them the label of 'the bad one'.

[Rowan Amore]

27 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I would add another variable to the drama-seeker. They have a strong need to have an enemy, and seek with others to find an enemy and gang up on the designated scapegoat. This seems to be the only respite they have for feeling good about themselves -- by putting another down and assigning to them the label of 'the bad one'.

I'm sure that's how YOU see it.  Putting down someone specifically is entirely different than putting down what they post.  I'm sure you already know this.  When someone is asked repeatedly to not post certain things yet continues to do so, that's abusive IMO and shouldn't be left unchallenged.  

I do not care what anyone does in SL.  I also don't care what type of person they are in general.  I DO care when they disregard many people's requests and continue with the over sharing posts.

"They have a strong need to find a friend to rally behind regardless of how many people they offend.  They then bully anyone who opposes their opinion.  They seem to only feel good when they are championing for the underdog."

[Solar Legion]

10 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

That's pretty uncalled for.

That is normal, coming from that direction.

8 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

This is not the issue, and you know it.

If you disagree with what Lindal said, then argue with her points on their own merits -- as, in fact, you just did above.

The ad hominem snark, on the other hand, was unnecessary and mean-spirited.

Believe it or not, I thought you were better than that.

You thought wrong, clearly.

That said, there is no real difference between VS and the attack blogs some utilize.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

5 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

It's also hard to draw the line. At what point does a person who is large-breasted a "boopsie"? What defines "brainless"? Etc. These can be judgement calls. I think you have to take the attitude that people will do what they want when they are free, and on this score in SL, they are certainly free. You can always make a sim with, I dunno, Lysistrata or something.

Well, to begin with, I wasn't at all sure that she was RPing. I think it entirely possible that this is how she actually was/is. And that is the source, mostly, of my regret: she's someone whom I'd like to talk to about her presentation of female sexuality, but mocking her as I did was not kind. Her response in the comments was not at all aggressive or defensive. I think she was probably quite genuine. And I need to be better at not assuming that that kind of presentation is RP in SL, and just be generally nicer.

I am trying.

I have fewer issues with my response if she was RPing. It's another curious example of how it's sort of open season on women in SL. Were I to represent as, say, a black woman and RP it according to every cliche in the book, people would rightly view it as offensive and quiet possibly AR it. And LL would be quite likely to take action: the one instance I've witnessed of a Linden from the governance team swooping in and actually booting an avatar in front of my eyes was just such a case.

On the other hand, one can represent a woman in pretty much any offensively stereotypical manner one wants, including (not infrequently in some sims) playing her as "deserving" of r*pe or actually "wanting it" . . . and that's just fine so far as most people, and LL, is concerned.

I am of the quaint opinion that if one is representing something or someone one is not, be it a different ethnicity, gender, biological sex, sexual orientation, or whatever, that one should do it respectfully, and not reinforce ugly and sometimes dangerous cultural stereotypes.

Oh well. "Your world, your imagination" . . . But I do wonder about the dark and ugly mess that is sometimes evidently people's "imagination."

Edited August 16, 2022 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Luna Bliss]

30 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

I would add another variable to the drama-seeker. They have a strong need to have an enemy, and seek with others to find an enemy and gang up on the designated scapegoat. This seems to be the only respite they have for feeling good about themselves -- by putting another down and assigning to them the label of 'the bad one'.

I'm sure that's how YOU see it.  Putting down someone specifically is entirely different than putting down what they post.  I'm sure you already know this.  When someone is asked repeatedly to not post certain things yet continues to do so, that's abusive IMO and shouldn't be left unchallenged.  

I do not care what anyone does in SL.  I also don't care what type of person they are in general.  I DO care when they disregard many people's requests and continue with the over sharing posts.

"They have a strong need to find a friend to rally behind regardless of how many people they offend.  They then bully anyone who opposes their opinion.  They seem to only feel good when they are championing for the underdog."

Virtual Secrets exemplifies in spades this 'drama dynamic' we're discussing. Power dynamics are evident in any group, but in this group we see an extreme, unhealthy distortion of them.
What underlies this need for drama, the root of it, is much deeper than simple boredom by those engaging in the behavior. Poor self-esteem lies at the root of it. They are trying to obtain group support/approval by joining with others against a common enemy -- nothing creates bonding between members of any group more than designating a common enemy to demonize and push against.

Virtual Secrets is totally about finding fault with and demonizing others.

Those engaging in this dynamic always feel their demonization of another is justified. They ignore evidence to the contrary.
It's always wise, should we see many facing off against one, even on this forum, to view the evidence clearly -- might we be missing some evidence which goes against our desire to demonize another because we're already made up our mind they are wrong? And is what we've chosen to feel offended by in another truly justified? Simply because a few are in agreement does not justify the shunning of another or their expression if it is not justified.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Luna Bliss

[Seicher Rae]

35 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

"They have a strong need to find a friend to rally behind regardless of how many people they offend.  They then bully anyone who opposes their opinion.  They seem to only feel good when they are championing for the underdog."

Overlooking the cognitive dissonance you were responding to... just want to slightly amend what you wrote here. ↑

"They have a strong need to find someone they can convince of their friendly intentions, someone they can appear to rally behind regardless of how many people they offend. They then bully anyone who opposes their opinion or interferes with the facade of friendly, righteous champion they are trying to project. They have no real feeling towards their target of "support" nor to any real issue, but they seem to only feel good when they are championing for their chosen underdog, the underdog they so labelled, often to the annoyance of their targets. This need is so great, that they will follow threads that have been flagged with a moderator's note, or that has a "hot" button next to the title, because that is where they know they will find the most exposure."

PS (not ETA) I find the whole notion of forum "enemies" to be ridiculous, but I know very, very well that many see things in such ways and I notoriously had one such person applied to me many years ago. There are people who should be muted, and often are.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Seicher Rae
formatting readability

[Lindal Kidd]

1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

as opposed to chronologically bored

Uh, I think you meant "chronically", dear.

(Sorry, we all know how pedantic I am)

[Seicher Rae]

Just now, Lindal Kidd said:

Uh, I think you meant "chronically", dear.

(Sorry, we all know how pedantic I am)

Ahahahaha. I can be just as um, pedantic, and totally missed that one.

/me scampers back over to VS with another jpg

[Rowan Amore]

The evidence is fairly clear if one chooses to look for it.    Details of one's exploits in SL should be in the Adult section and not added to numerous posts.  Period.   If it's there, I have no issue with it being posted by anyone.

 

[Rowan Amore]

2 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Uh, I think you meant "chronically", dear.

(Sorry, we all know how pedantic I am)

I was on my phone!  Without my readers on!  

*rushes off to fix it, waving a thanks to Lindal

[Luna Bliss]

@FairreLilette

Virtual Secrets is calling you. (not Fairre)

I had hoped for change, but sadly I see the same dynamics in play.

This is getting too close to fighting, so best I leave the thread.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Luna Bliss

[Amina Sopwith]

55 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Uh, I think you meant "chronically", dear.

(Sorry, we all know how pedantic I am)

She might just mean she's incredibly bored in the right order of time. Like if you read Gor books in the order they were published.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Amina Sopwith

[Quartz Mole]

Please, folks, if you feel a poster is attacking you in this thread (or anywhere in the forums), if you must respond to it, do it in personal messages and not the public forum.   

If you think that a post breaks any of the guidelines, just report it and let the moderators deal with it.   Please don't reply to it -- that just keeps the dispute going and makes more work for moderation as we try to clear after the fight.

[Gatogateau]

[Love Zhaoying]

2 hours ago, Amina Sopwith said:

She might just mean she's incredibly bored in the right order of time. Like if you read Gor books in the order they were published.

Ooh! I started the Dune novels with #5.

[Love Zhaoying]

3 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Uh, I think you meant "chronically", dear.

(Sorry, we all know how pedantic I am)

Who you calling "Chronic"?

Is joke!

[CaithLynnSayes]

23 minutes ago, Quartz Mole said:

...as we try to clear after the fight.

I'll be honest. I'm deeply surprised this thread is already 5 pages long. I thought a cat fight would break out way sooner. I'm proud of y'all  

Edited August 16, 2022 by CaithLynnSayes
Typo

[Rowan Amore]

2 minutes ago, CaithLynnSayes said:

I'll be honest. I'm deeply surprised this thread is already 5 pages long. I thought a cat fight would break out way sooner. I'm proud of y'all  

Why a thread that isn't specifically about something within Second Life was even allowed after the first post is certainly confusing to me considering the new guidelines.

[CaithLynnSayes]

Just now, Rowan Amore said:

Why a thread that isn't specifically about something within Second Life was even allowed after the first post is certainly confusing to me considering the new guidelines.

Ooooh yeaahh... Y'all are breaking the rules! I retract my proudness! (is that even a word? lol)

[Love Zhaoying]

9 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Why a thread that isn't specifically about something within Second Life was even allowed after the first post is certainly confusing to me considering the new guidelines.

A lot of the comments about Virtual Worlds makes these Forums (and Second Life) look great by comparison!  Is magic mirror.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

5 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Why a thread that isn't specifically about something within Second Life was even allowed after the first post is certainly confusing to me considering the new guidelines.

I guess that's subject to interpretation. Virtual Secrets (and other external blogs and sources like The Herald, JuicyBomb, Inara's blog, etc., are all themselves explicitly "about" Second Life, so talking about them is talking about SL in a sense. They do "relate directly to Second Life/Linden Lab," to quote the mantra, even if they are not PART of SL.

Too restrictive interpretation of what constitutes "relevant" to SL could lead to us being unable to talk about SL's place within the Metaverse, other platforms and/or games that have relevant lessons to teach us, external tools such as Blender or Photoshop, etc.

[Luna Bliss]

5 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

A lot of the comments about Virtual Worlds makes these Forums (and Second Life) look great by comparison!  Is magic mirror.

I know, we can spell a whole lot better here.

[Marigold Devin]

On 8/14/2022 at 7:01 PM, PekeNL said:

So. We (mostly) know it's a thing, but I never really found the opinion of SL'ers on it beside a few people I know that feed on drama. I notice browsing it a lot of it is mangled private drama that, unless you know the people, offers no sharp exhale (Cheating posts main contender). Not to mention a lot of posts seen to be made in MS paint with the worst color/font combination someone can come up with. 

What's your opinion?

I've tried on a couple of different occasions to read through some of the content but it really is like a different language, and wading through a b1tchfest isn't my idea of a good time. It's not even accurate just a bunch of opinions by people who seem to either need a sandwich or to empty their bowels. They just seem so unnecessarily angry all of the time. 

[colleen Criss]

I have no issue about discussions about anything as long as it does not turn in 5 redundant pages of discussion that becomes a bit repetitive. No, we will not all agree, but we don't have too. 

Sadly this thread has gone left of center for some, it is almost a VS vibe for me and now look that s*** show is getting a ton of press that they really do not care about because the sight is what it is and they have never changed. If this line of opinions continues to make people feel attacked , maybe we need to examine that.

[Rowan Amore]

37 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I guess that's subject to interpretation. Virtual Secrets (and other external blogs and sources like The Herald, JuicyBomb, Inara's blog, etc., are all themselves explicitly "about" Second Life, so talking about them is talking about SL in a sense. They do "relate directly to Second Life/Linden Lab," to quote the mantra, even if they are not PART of SL.

Too restrictive interpretation of what constitutes "relevant" to SL could lead to us being unable to talk about SL's place within the Metaverse, other platforms and/or games that have relevant lessons to teach us, external tools such as Blender or Photoshop, etc.

I  can't disagree with you.  I'm still surprised that this specific topic was allowed considering the content of VS.  Those other sites, aside from the Herald, are positive sites.  Other sites are often brought up in threads not specifically ABOUT those sites.  I've brought up Inara's site several times in response to other topics.

If VS had been brought up in regards to some other SL topic, then it's relevant.  Blender, Photoshop, JuicyBomb are all posts within a thread not necessarily subjects in and of themselves. If they are subjects, it's on how they relate to something in SL. There IS a difference.  How the heck does VS relate to SL except in a negative way?