What would be too much of an "ick factor" ?

[Persephone Emerald]

13 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

it's not about feelings, but RP doesn't belong in a discussion like this.

Why not? 

EliseAnne85 is talking about her real feelings while she's in character as her avatar. Isn't this what we all experience in SL? I think most of us experience real feelings while we're in SL. The way our avatar appears might express how we're feeling or how we view some part of our psyche. Sometimes in RP we might not even realize until later that the way our character looks, talks and acts reflects something in our real psyche.

Just because someone chooses to represent themself as a tiny, a furry, or any other way that's not how they look in RL, that doesn't mean their feeling while *they* are in that form are invalid.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Persephone Emerald

[EliseAnne85]

5 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

you describe RP,  that's not discussable.  That's why it's irrelevant in this.

SL is almost all role play, believe it or not.  So, is this Casino.  This Casino could be described as role play Casino since one cannot win.  

If there are other icks in SL, that is all mostly role play, too.  Many of the icks in SL have nothing to do with a person's real life.  

[Love Zhaoying]

33 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

The idea of shaving one's head in solidarity with someone who is losing their hair due to chemotherapy comes from RL & is not an "ick factor". Baldness isn't either.

Context, so you'll see what in the world I was thinking:

When I was quite young, early 1970's, as a child I only knew 2 bald / balding men. One was my pediatrician. The other was a family friend / dad's coworker - he wore a toupee (not common today, and/or they are much improved).

In that context, if this was still those early 1970's, it was before chemotherapy existed and it was common to see people bald from chemo. Along with that, people shaving their heads in solidarity just wasn't a thing! 

So for me, growing up with that lack of exposure to baldness (sure, there was Telly Savalas), "baldness" wasn't "ick", just unusual.

However in Second Life, you only have to remove your "wig" and "hair base", and voila! You're bald. In that context, "bidding" a Linden "bald" just seems silly.

 

[Alwin Alcott]

2 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Just because someone chooses to represent themself as a tiny, a furry, or any other way that's not how they look in RL, that doesn't mean their feeling while *they* are in that form are invalid.

it's not because of what someone is, a Lion, Dinkie, Furry or human, but the irrealistic look and presentation about the discussion about LL employees.

[Love Zhaoying]

6 minutes ago, Istelathis said:

I often consider myself as nihilistic, or as close to the philosophy as any other I have bothered to research a little on. 

That's cool, I've never been annihilated!

[EliseAnne85]

9 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

it's not because of what someone is, a Lion, Dinkie, Furry or human, but the irrealistic look and presentation about the discussion about LL employees.

Some of us in the thread have feelings that are uncomfortable should LL get involved with things that could be viewed very Adult and/or controversial.

I don't have any else to say other than...I am entitled to own feelings as are you. 

The "icks" in SL create feelings in some.  If LL were to do those things, the same feelings would probably occur.  But, it wouldn't be our peers doing it, it would be the "General and his Army" sort of thing are doing it.  

However, I still have said on the other hand LL has a right to do with their business whatever they want.  Each would have to decide what is too much "ick".  I live with the ick here now by doing my own thing and ignoring it.

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by EliseAnne85

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Gwin LeShelle said:

Patch is silent although he got tagged

Possibly all tied up? And/or "not his project / circus / monkeys".

[Persephone Emerald]

1 minute ago, Alwin Alcott said:

it's not because of what someone is, a Lion, Dinkie, Furry or human, but the irrealistic look and presentation about the discussion about LL employees.

I think I get your point that Lindens and Moles are employees of a company and representatives of a product - a virtual world - that we use. However, feelings are squishy things that may not seem logical. It's entirely possibly for someone to feel like a boss or supervisor is a parental figure. It's possible to feel like a favorite waitress or hairdresser is like a mother, that a coach is like a father, or a bartender is like a brother.

Since this thread is all about how we feel about the Lindens when they do something controversial in SL, I think explaining that they seem like parents to someone is perfectly valid. She knows they aren't really her parents, but perhaps it's good for them to know that some residents want them to behave in a somewhat respectable, parental way.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Since this thread is all about how we feel about the Lindens when they do something controversial in SL, I think explaining that they seem like parents to someone is perfectly valid. She knows they aren't really her parents, but perhaps it's good for them to know that some residents want them to behave in a somewhat respectable, parental way.

Yeah, nobody was to think about what their parents do behind closed doors.  It's not like olden times, when everyone just slept in 1 big room. 

I think we like to assume the Lindens set a "good example" so as not to scare off the "straights" (what is called "normal" people these days - not the same as "normies").

[Love Zhaoying]

Fun fact: "Ick" (also known as "Ich", Ichthyophthirius multifiliis protozoan) is a disease common in pet fish, treatable with various medicines.

[EliseAnne85]

10 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I think we like to assume the Lindens set a "good example" so as not to scare off the "straights" (what is called "normal" people these days - not the same as "normies").

Many of the things the OP lists as possibilities for ick have no specific sexuality, they encompass many sexualities.  So, I don't think straights or "normal people these days" has anything to do with what is a good role model at all.  

For just one example, this Casino is for all, sexualities plus includes no sexuality too, there are no boundaries here.  What is considered an ick with the Casino can interfere with all our lives and it's called addiction.  

The OP, I think, is asking how far can this go before it's too much.  

It's like one person who posted LL is doing what?  Huh?  Some people are baffled.  I think perhaps because it was banned, now it's not banned but has loopholes.

[diamond Marchant]

11 hours ago, Randall Ahren said:

Sexual depravity and debauchery is SL's economic niche. That's why SL has survived all these years.

I got stuck thinking about this. I believe this to be a common view, but also think it might be a virtual world myth.

We need some university researcher to do a study

In 2009, diamond first rezzed... in a pre-Zindra strip club*. I was introduced to SL by a RL friend who basically said... "check this out, it's a hoot". We had our fun but we were soon more interested in fishing and I got interested in building and scripting, as these aligned with my RL profession. My point is, the adult activities were the hook, but if that was all there is about SL, I would have departed after a few weeks.

We each have our reasons for sticking around. Mine is that this particular world allows me to build stuff, for myself and others. And there is that community thing... the one that emerges from common interests.

Another thing that suggests that sex is NOT the main sticky factor is that, relatively speaking, there are so few of us here. Studies, like those reported here, suggest that a significant portion of internet resources concern porn. In this context, Second Life appears to be infinitessimal. SL is poorly matched to the competition.

*explains why my name is diamond

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by diamond Marchant

[Rowan Amore]

3 minutes ago, diamond Marchant said:

I got stuck thinking about this. I believe this to be a common view, but also think it might be a virtual world myth.

We need some university researcher to do a study

In 2009, diamond first rezzed... in a pre-Zindra strip club. I was introduced to SL by a RL friend who basically said... "check this out, it's a hoot". We had our fun but we were soon more interested in fishing and I got interested in building and scripting, as these aligned with my RL profession. My point is, the adult activities were the hook, but if that was all there is about SL, I would have departed after a few weeks.

We each have our reasons for sticking around. Mine is that this particular world allows me to build stuff, for myself and others. And there is that community thing... the one that emerges from common interests.

Another thing that suggests that sex is NOT the main draw is that, relatively speaking, there are so few of us here. Studies, like those reported here, suggest that a significant portion of internet resources concern porn. In this context, Second Life appears to be infinitessimal. SL is poorly matched to the competition.

 

Anytime and anywhere you put men and women together, there will be some degree of sexuality involved.  It's purely human nature.  That doesn't mean every person who joins has anything sexual in mind.  But as with RL, there can be an attraction.  They either choose to pursue it or they don't.

I haven't been involved in that aspect of SL for several years now.  That doesn't mean I'm not enjoying the company of male friends.  It's just gone beyond the cartoon p0rn.  To be honest, it's the happiest I've been in SL.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

16 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

This is very interesting, and I find that I feel the same way. Which raises the question, WHY do (most of us) feel that it's OK if Residents do these things, but not if LL does them?

I need @Scylla Rhiadra to jump in here and (once again!) explain my feelings to me.

Sorry, late to this . . .

I can think offhand of three related points here. (I could probably think of more, given time and effort, but meh.)

1) When a resident engages in something that some might see as reprehensible, LL can say, with some justification, that they are merely providing tools for self-expression, and that the appearance of that behaviour or product or service in SL does not in itself represent an endorsement by LL. And this is valid to the extent that LL hosts both left wing and right wing political groups, both misogynist clubs and feminist groups, both race play RP and pro-BLM groups, etc., etc.

But when LL itself is responsible for that activity, that does, unarguably, represent at least an implicit public endorsement of that activity. If LL has created a social casino that is branded as an LL facility, then clearly LL thinks social casinos are "ok."

And now, suddenly, "Scylla Rhiadra," an identity that is almost entirely associated with -- is indeed sort of a creation of -- Second Life, is now voluntarily continuing her association with an organization that is consciously profiting from what I think is a predatory, exploitive, and socially reprehensible activity. And that's problematic in a way that LL's hosting of icky groups created by others isn't.

2) And it's not merely a question of "association." Most of us, and certainly me included, contribute financially in real terms to Linden Lab's bottom line. We pay for services, and we help keep the economy that is in large measure LL's financial bread and butter going strong.

Except that now the RL money that I am putting into Second Life, and most especially that which I am paying directly to LL through being Premium, paying for extra tier, and through various fees, is profiting a company that is engaged in an activity that I find ethically suspect, if not outright immoral. And so long as I and everyone else continues to do so, LL is going to have the (correct) impression that they can do this profitable but ethically suspect thing with impunity, because it's not hurting their bottom line. That makes me complicit.

3) This social casino is very small beans right now: its actual contribution to LL's revenue must be almost immeasurably small. But that may change, and even if it doesn't, the social casino is now a part of the platform, however small and insignificant. It is, in other words, embedded structurally into LL's profit model and its policies, and it's going to eventually start to impact, for that reason, upon other policies, such as the ToS, because it is now part of the platform's and the company's "normal operations." If this does become bigger, that impact is going to become more marked, as the social casino becomes a more substantial part of LL's revenue stream and the "SL experience." I can't predict what those impacts might be -- or indeed, tell you what they are now -- but the very existence of this casino has changed, if only subtly for now, SL's nature, and its "mission statement" (for want of a better word).

As to the question -- when does this become something I can no longer live with? Well, it's not there yet. We all inevitably must make ethical and moral compromises to merely exist in the 21st century: it's simply impossible to dissociate oneself from every product or company or agency one finds morally objectionable. So, we make choices. I refuse to buy products associated with Nestle, because they are a particularly egregious violator of human rights and fair labour practices. But I'm not going to pretend that the companies I patronize instead are paragons of social justice and virtue. They're all pretty dirty in their own ways too.

I can imagine a point at which the appearance of social casinos in SL becomes really noxious and toxic. And at that point, I'll have to start asking myself if the good things here can justify my continued association it. But we're not there yet.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Love Zhaoying]

10 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

Anytime and anywhere you put men and women together, there will be some degree of sexuality involved. 

..and Gay / Bi / Pan same-sex people together..just being fair!

 

[Love Zhaoying]

10 hours ago, diamond Marchant said:

I got stuck thinking about this.

iknowrite? It's hard NOT to think about depravity and debauchery.

* innocent look *

[Love Zhaoying]

12 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Sorry, late to this . . .

I can think offhand of three related points here. (I could probably think of more, given time and effort, but meh.)

1) When a resident engages in something that some might see as reprehensible, LL can say, with some justification, that they are merely providing tools for self-expression, and that the appearance of that behaviour or product or service in SL does not in itself represent an endorsement by LL. And this is valid to the extent that LL hosts both left wing and right wing political groups, both misogynist clubs and feminist groups, both race play RP and pro-BLM groups, etc., etc.

But when LL itself is responsible for that activity, that does, unarguably, represent at least an implicit public endorsement of that activity. If LL has created a social casino that is branded as an LL facility, then clearly LL thinks social casinos are "ok."

And now, suddenly, "Scylla Rhiadra," an identity that is almost entirely associated with -- is indeed sort of a creation of -- Second Life, is now voluntarily continuing her association with an organization that is consciously profiting from what I think is a predatory, exploitive, and socially reprehensible activity. And that's problematic in a way that LL's hosting of icky groups created by others isn't.

2) And it's not merely a question of "association." Most of us, and certainly me included, contribute financially in real terms to Linden Lab's bottom line. We pay for services, and we help keep the economy that is in large measure LL's financial bread and butter going strong.

Except that now the RL money that I am putting into Second Life, and most especially that which I am paying directly to LL through being Premium, paying for extra tier, and through various fees, is profiting a company that is engaged in an activity that I find ethically suspect, if not outright immoral. And so long as I and everyone else continues to do so, LL is going to have the (correct) impression that they can do this profitable but ethically suspect thing with impunity, because it's not hurting their bottom line. That makes me complicit.

3) This social casino is very small beans right now: its actual contribution to LL's revenue must be almost immeasurably small. But that may change, and even if it doesn't, the social casino is now a part of the platform, however small and insignificant. It is, in other words, embedded structurally into LL's profit model and its policies, and it's going to eventually start to impact, for that reason, upon other policies, such as the ToS, because it is now part of the platform's and the company's "normal operations." If this does become bigger, that impact is going to become more marked, as the social casino becomes a more substantial part of LL's revenue stream and the "SL experience." I can't predict what those impacts might be -- or indeed, tell you what they are now -- but the very existence of this casino has changed, if only subtly for now, SL's nature, and its "mission statement" (for want of a better word).

As to the question -- when does this become something I can no longer live with? Well, it's not there yet. We all inevitably must make ethical and moral compromises to merely exist in the 21st century: it's simply impossible to dissociate oneself from every product or company or agency one finds morally objectionable. So, we make choices. I refuse to buy products associated with Nestle, because they are a particularly egregious violator of human rights and fair labour practices. But I'm not going to pretend that the companies I patronize instead are paragons of social justice and virtue. They're all pretty dirty in their own ways too.

I can imagine a point at which the appearance of social casinos in SL becomes really noxious and toxic. And at that point, I'll have to start asking myself if the good things here can justify my continued association it. But we're not there yet.

It's a slippery slope - by supporting LL, we are all "implicitly supporting" any LL-supported activities that we do not agree with. And of course, by using the platform we are also "implicitly supporting" activities which LL does not "support" but "allows".  I think it would take a lot more than the theoretical future LL-supported Casinos for me to "boycott" SL and LL.

Sure, some may disagree with me but it is all just words, really. ("What? I'M not doing XXX.  None of MY friends are doing XXX.  It doesn't hurt ME that other people are doing XXX.")

 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Love Zhaoying

[Persephone Emerald]

10 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

Anytime and anywhere you put men and women together, there will be some degree of sexuality involved.  It's purely human nature.  That doesn't mean every person who joins has anything sexual in mind.  But as with RL, there can be an attraction.  They either choose to pursue it or they don't.

I haven't been involved in that aspect of SL for several years now.  That doesn't mean I'm not enjoying the company of male friends.  It's just gone beyond the cartoon p0rn.  To be honest, it's the happiest I've been in SL.

11 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

..and Gay / Bi / Pan same-sex people together..just being fair!

Anytime and anywhere you put men and women people together, there will be some degree of sexuality involved.

 

Better?

[Persephone Emerald]

23 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

[snip]

2) And it's not merely a question of "association." Most of us, and certainly me included, contribute financially in real terms to Linden Lab's bottom line. We pay for services, and we help keep the economy that is in large measure LL's financial bread and butter going strong.

Except that now the RL money that I am putting into Second Life, and most especially that which I am paying directly to LL through being Premium, paying for extra tier, and through various fees, is profiting a company that is engaged in an activity that I find ethically suspect, if not outright immoral. And so long as I and everyone else continues to do so, LL is going to have the (correct) impression that they can do this profitable but ethically suspect thing with impunity, because it's not hurting their bottom line. That makes me complicit.

[snip]

^  This ^

I don't give much money to LL anymore, but I still support it as a Premium member, and I don't want to support a company that promotes predatory practices on people.

[Coffee Pancake]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

As to the question -- when does this become something I can no longer live with? Well, it's not there yet.

At this point, we're here for our friends and social connections.

We have already seen entire communities up and vanish over the course of a couple of weeks, leaving only the landowners with empty regions holding onto the sunk cost. (for a real scare, pick any search term, and past the fold you will find endless empty location after location to explore. lost dead dreams and sunk cost all the way down.)

When a social group moves on, the people remaining find fewer and fewer friends online. SL dries up. A friends list hundreds strong and .. less than a dozen online. The question "why am I spending my time here, alone" starts to come up.. 

The majority of friends I made in SL and have remained close to, can't be tempted back for love nor money. For them the magic was broken years ago. Something happened and the line was crossed and they quietly moved on and close friends followed them.

Being forced to question LL's ethics and motivation is another line that breaks the magic.

 

For the overwhelming majority who don't come here, it wont be debate, or screaming and flouncing. There wont be attempts to seek clarification or explanation, to find ways to cope. 

It will be "hey, wanna come play ____ with me for a bit?"

 

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I can imagine a point at which the appearance of social casinos in SL becomes really noxious and toxic. And at that point, I'll have to start asking myself if the good things here can justify my continued association it. But we're not there yet.

It won't ever get that far. Who seriously sits down and studies their involvement and choices.

Most will just find their time filled with other things that don't present ethical or moral dilemmas, it's surprisingly easy and thoughtless. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Coffee Pancake

[Sid Nagy]

SL is a world with a lot of dark sides. Always has been. We all know it, LL knows it. We have all accepted that and stayed anyway. LL never has been very ethical in what to allow tenants to do on their leased land.
The ban on gambling and gachas wasn't an ethical decision, but legally driven.  It never left. Skill games was the new mantra, We accepted that and stayed.

And now LL is experimenting with a Casino that is probably within the lines of what is legally possible.
Most will accept and stay.
There is no perfect world. RL isn't. SL isn't.
Maybe somewhere over the rainbow, but not here or anywhere near.

We have 2 choices: stay and accept  or leave.
I'm still around, so while I don't particularly like the dark sides of SL, I somehow live with them by ignoring them.

Time for another cup of coffee.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Sid Nagy

[cunomar]

If there is no victim then there is no crime . In context "adult" simply defines not suitable for children , and the reason for it is all and every adult has a responsibility to protect a child's innocence .

LL is effectively government for SL . Governments the world over actively encourage prostitution inasmuch as you work body and soul all day every day just to make ends meet , because its taxable .

Sex is harder to tax so in most places its illegal to sell it . But if such a study were to be performed i am sure those places of legally sanctioned brothels would show a universally lower police attendance for criminal incident than just about any nightclub .

Gambling is not bad , neither is smoking , its for the adult to make a choice while being fully informed that both can be addictive - same as chocolate biscuits , or wine , or just about anything .

Its easy to imagine LL performing an anti-competitive corporate takeover though .

I see that happening right now with a long established sim , I can only assume that the rl owner died , and wonder how somebody else took over all the land (though furniture and buildings were gone) and a group running into thousands of members .

How the hell is somebody who buys and builds hoping to make a modest success of some little club supposed to compete with that ?

I think most of the populated adult zones are connected by a conglomerate anyway so only LL could impact upon their influence .

Competition drives innovation and without it the owners can charge as much they like .

Incidentally, gambling is frowned upon because it is difficult to police trace and tax . The smoking ban was in answer to the credit crunch , it forced tobacco companies to inject some of their vast reserve wealth into economies . They don't give a damn about your personal health , wealth or debts .

Edited May 18, 2023 by cunomar

[EliseAnne85]

9 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

1) When a resident engages in something that some might see as reprehensible, LL can say, with some justification, that they are merely providing tools for self-expression, and that the appearance of that behaviour or product or service in SL does not in itself represent an endorsement by LL.

Yes, this is how it was.  ^^^^^^^^  Now that's changed.

I had never heard of Social Casinos before and when I first came to these many threads on this Social Casino by LL, it was stated this was like a role play Casino.  Now, after reading and learning more information in these threads and by reading a few articles, these Social Casinos date back to 2013 per an article I read with that year.  

I still cannot see it as any way but to intentionally lose real big money if one isn't just using the free chips, and that I don't understand the draw of it.  

Now that I know these have been "a thing" for quite some time, I think it has been a draw for people on mobile phones plus, since legalized gambling wasn't allowed on the web, this was created lamely in it's place.

The reason I mention mobile is because SL may have difficulty running much on mobile and LL thought this is the way to get people into SL (mobile).  But, to have it free, that would be a huge bill on LL for all those servers for all those people who may want to play for free.  LL simply might have seen this is the way to draw people into SL on mobile when that time comes.  If my suspicions are right, I wish they would have thought of something else.  I can't see newbies going for much beyond the NUX avatar and looking for quick hook-ups with this set up for mobile SL.  But, then again, gotta get this thing off the ground first.

The saddest part of all is people are addicted to their phones literally.

Edited May 18, 2023 by EliseAnne85

[Rowan Amore]

15 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

since legalized gambling isn't allowed on the web

It certainly is allowed depending on which state you live in.  My state just recently allowed online sports betting.  Others allow that as well as online poker and casino games. 

 

[EliseAnne85]

27 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

It certainly is allowed depending on which state you live in.  My state just recently allowed online sports betting.  Others allow that as well as online poker and casino games. 

 

No, I meant when Social Casinos were created, there was no legal online gambling back then, not that I've ever heard and this Social Casino thing was lamely created in it's stead.  I read an article back to 2013 about Social Casinos.  From what I know of now, I think gambling is legal now in about six states.  How LL would separate the legal states from the illegal states if they wanted to bring real legal gambling here, I'd have no idea how they could do that but that isn't even what I was talking about.  I'd think if legalized gambling ever came to SL, they'd want more states than just six.  

Many states have fought online gambling because they don't want to lose the real jobs more than is it ethical or unethical to gamble.  The main reason is they do not want to lose the jobs period.  

 

Edited May 18, 2023 by EliseAnne85