Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Huntress Catteneo

Pointless meetings

Recommended Posts


Ginette Pinazzo wrote:

I am not sure there would be value in listing an infinite number of new ideas here ...or even new idea categories.

Let's talk inworld and give the Moderators a break! Or better yet,  come to a brainstorming session where new ideas are flowing and see for yourself.

If you can't visualize out-of-the-box, that's fine. It's not for everyone. I would think anyone would recognize the value (and reality) of new idea formation, of all types, as a benefit to getting things done. I think it's probably safe to say great things are built with new ideas. SL itself?

Here's an example.......on topic!.....

If many people dislike the meetings.........and dislike the forums.....or simply dont have the time to participate in either, a
new idea
might be proposed, to provide more access for those people. That would be highly relevant. That would be exciting. That would be new.

We seem to be at cross-purposes.

 I'm not asking you to list "an infinite number of new ideas;" I'm asking you to tell me what sort of ideas you think might usefully be discussed at ACUG meetings, and to what end.     And saying that we might discuss a new idea to get people to attend these meetings is beside the point; what are they going to discuss when these new ideas have induced them to attend?   

To my mind, meetings are a means to an end, and not an end in themselves.   I'm asking you what you think the purpose of ACUG meetings is, or should be.  I attend partly because I sometimes learn something that's of use to me and my business partner in our business, and partly because it's an opportunity to take up with Viale things relating to Adult Content that are under the direct control of LL -- the Destination Guide, for example.    

But I just don't see it as a productive use of anyone's time to attend ACUG meetings to come up with "new ideas."  If someone gets together with some like-minded people and then comes up with a new idea relating to Adult Content that they want to undertake that they think might be in some way facilitated by discussing it at ACUG, then fine.   But, as I said earlier, I don't think that's often the case.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SL is not a government. Nor is it strickly a pure business. To think of it either way leads to problems as both the government and business analogies break down.

To try and keep things clear LL is the business and SL is the world. LL is the business selling admission to the world and providing the services needed for it to exist. This is novel to both busness and government models. But, within SL LL is a participant like a government is a pariticipant in a nation. In most nations the politicians and beauracrats running the givernment are a priviladged class. The Lindens sort of fit the bill for benevolent dictators. I see them as somewhere between that and something like an elected represetative. But, again the anology starts to break up.

Citizens in most dictatorships have little if any say and there is little if any choice left to them. In RL we see people fleeing oppressive nations. That is possible in SL too, but the options are limited. However, their is nothing to force one to login. In RL we can't get off the planet, so again anaologies break.

Since it is possible to leave SL the LL dictator does have to consider desires of the citizens of SL. So, just as a dictator that goes too far faces insurrection, so too does SL. Also, just as politicians think they understand people and play them and cater to their desires to get votes, so too do LL think they understand what makes games popular and cater to player retention. The differences between a desire for power and control verse profit greatly complicate the analogies.

I think you can see we have a highly complex hybrid of business and social interactions. Failing to understand that brings many people to a high state of frustration.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent response Innula. Your point on motives for a hidden agenda are well taken. I agree. In a business a hidden agenda is not necessarily malicious. It is rare that it  would be. 

In a team effort a hidden agenda is not particularly productive. I personally find it frustrating. Still I respect LL's right to run their business as they see fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meetings are expensive in terms of people and time. They need to be of value to all participating.

One of the things public meetings provide is the meeting of people. They serve a purpose in allowing people unknown to each other to meet. While one can meet in the forum, IM, Feed, and other online locations those meetings happen without mind sync... meaning you may call me while you are on about one idea and you reach me while I'm into something else. At meetings people sync up their thinking. All the framework is aligned and ideas are in context. It is a basic reason for having a face-to-face meeting. The opposite of a meeting is cold calling, which is reounded for being the hardest of sales to make.

Meetings serve a purpose. But one has to decide the purpose of the meeting in advance. The purposes of ACUG while stated seem out of sync with what happens.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New idea of all types.

If you are not there for new ideas yourself, that's fine, but many are....and its the ability to discuss new ideas that brings in more people..its called opportunity....inclusiveness.....its a path to growth..........thsse meetings have been very dynamic at moments when the flow of new ideas was strong.....and may more people were involved at that time.

Productive time? Hard to imagine that the formation of new ideas isnt productive. Almost every development you are probably excited about that has resulted from these meetings in some fashion, has been a 'new idea' at some point.  Example: even the Destination Guide developments are a direct result of resident-proposed initiatives.  If you only had reports of existing issues, you'd have no meetings at all anyway.

New ideas to what end? The inital threadmaker here has told a tale of woe, as others have, about meetings that seem pointless. A fabulous way to bring back the point? Encourage new ideas from the community and bring them to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nalates Urriah wrote:

SL is not a government. Nor is it strickly a pure business. To think of it either way leads to problems as both the government and business analogies break down.

 

Agreed.

 

Let me try and clarify a very clear cut role Linden Lab has though.

LL has a direct business relationship with a relatively small subset of the active residents, namely the Premium account holders. Depending on when and whom you ask, the numbers are around 70-90k individuals.

While you can be an estate owner without holding a premium account, all mainland land owners must hold such an account. Not all premium account holders own land, but the vast majority do. There is therefore almost a one-to-one relationship between a land owner and a premium account holder.

LL's main source of income is tier – tier paid directly by these premium account holders to Linden Lab. Without the willingness of these premium account holders to continue to pay for the product provided by Linden Lab, SecondLife as we know it would vanish and Linden Lab would be out of business.

 

An estimate has been made that the average payment each premium account must make every month to sustain LL and Secondlife is about $420.

So for Linden Lab to maintain an excellent relationship with these accounts is crucial to the success of their business.

 

For Zindra and all adult private estates Linden Lab's role is very clear cut. I keep referring to it as the client rep role.

 

Every land parcel in use on the Zindra continent is owned by a premium account holder. Every private adult estate is owned by a premium account holder. Total monthly tier contribution for these are: $66885 (if Zindra fully populated) + $845765 (adult estates) for a total of $912650.

 

Zindra's share of this is about 7%, which illustrates Linden Lab's shift from being Zindra focused to Adult focused. This is the key driver for actions like renaming the Vortex sim to Adult rather than Zindra and associating it with adult in general.

 

This is also the key driver in shifting the approach with respect to what was essentially a meeting between the LL client rep with premium account holders in Zindra, to a meeting with all adult premium account holders. Unfortunately the Zindra meetings were early on muddled and to a large extent hijacked by individuals who more or less see Linden Lab as a government type entity being there to fulfill their (unpaid for) dreams.

It is not in LL's interest or the premium account holder's interest to support and maintain groups who fly in the face of the premium account holders and compete directly with them for attention and scarce marketing resources.

What LL must do is to cooperate with the premium account holders to develop and support initiatives which both grows their own and the premium account holder's business.

Next LL must stay out of community building, but leave that to the residents who have found a home inside the offering the premium account holders, the content providers and the technical abilities provided by the SecondLife platform in combination offers.

The advantage of letting the residents themselves do the community building is that it lowers the risk for regulatory intervention, and therefore Linden Lab's business risk. It also eliminates some conflicts of interest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my past experience and observations, in world meeting are always a disaster. Genuine time eating monsters of anarchy and self importance - mind you most meeting are even in RL too.

SL in world 'community' meetings are imho just a fob-off by LL to appease those few self appointed community representives who love to pontificate and work the room. In the end  LL will always do what they want regardless of what pesky residents feel.

If 'community' meetings are really to be of value they should be held in forums such as this with more formal arrangement and agendas and a specified number of discussion days allocated before locked.

Then we can all be seen and heard - wouldn't that be nice? But then you do know that most of the significant  descisions and arrangements are made in private away from critical public eyes and ears .

^L^

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Lasher Oh wrote:

In the end  LL will always do what they want regardless of what pesky residents feel.

 

Maybe they will, but being at odds with the premium account holders and content developers will seriously hamper their ability to sustain their own business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... the Premium account holders. Depending on when and whom you ask, the numbers are around 70-90k individuals.

According to the Wikipedia there are circa 21.3 million registered SL accounts. Accordingly, less than 4% of SL users subsidize all the rest of us. I have to wonder why that 3.78% goes to this expense. What do they get out of it?

Again, per the Wikipedia, only 233 members made what I'd call a livable wage (~$60K/yr.) in 2009 from SL income. From even this modest income would have to be subtracted the $5K that, according to you, they paid in tier ($420x12). So, okay, for a couple hundred people holding a premium account and paying tier is worth it, more or less. But why do the other ~80K do it? Why do they spend so much money making Linden Labs executives and shareholders rich, when, per LL's business model, it's perfectly easy to have great fun in SL without spending a cent of real money on it?

Jeanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The premium account holders are the only ones paying Linden Labs real dollars directly (there is a small contribution in addition from Lindex when dollars/currency are exchanged into/out of Linden Dollars, but this is small compared to tier.)

The other residents funnel their exchanged Linden dollars into products, services and rental land that eventually end up (mostly) with the premium accounts paying tier in real Dollars to LL. 

Since we have not seen stats from Linden Lab on this since early 2010 it is hard to say exactly what the current picture is like, but I believe the last stats said about 4500 individuals receive a net positive contribution per month from SecondLife. (I suppose that only includes Linden Dollars exchanged into real currency and taken out of resident accounts.) I am quite sure this number does not include accounts paying tier with dollars held in premium accounts having been exchanged from Linden Dollars. So the number of premium accounts breaking more or less even on their business operation must be much higher than the 4500 who take currency out of SecondLife on a monthly basis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JeanneAnne wrote:

Again, per the Wikipedia, only 233 members made what I'd call a livable wage (~$60K/yr.) in 2009 from SL income. From even this modest income would have to be subtracted the $5K that, according to you, they paid in tier ($420x12). So, okay, for a couple hundred people holding a premium account and paying tier is worth it, more or less. But why do the other ~80K do it? Why do they spend so much money making Linden Labs executives and shareholders rich, when, per LL's business model, it's perfectly easy to have great fun in SL without spending a cent of real money on it?


I don't see how that follows. I certainly don't make a liveable wage out of SL but I certainly do make considerably more than the cost of my tier and premium subscription. I've got a hobby I enjoy (making scripted BDSM toys and furniture) and it brings me in a few hundred dollars a month.   In what way am I spending money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ginette Pinazzo wrote:

New idea of all types.

 

 

A moment's thought would tell you that you don't mean that, since I imagine you would agree these "new ideas" should have some connection with Adult Content.   Nor do I think anyone would consider it a productive use of their time to discuss new ideas about functions it would be nice to have with RLV or some new ideas the Open Collar team have about how to develop OC items next, since while those are to do with Adult Content, they're nothing to do with LL or ACUG and if people want to discuss them, there's far more appropriate places.

To my mind, the point of ACUG meetings is that we're face to face with LL representatives, and can discuss with them matters concerning Adult Content as it relates to LL.    Most useful and original ideas people come up with are ones they can execute without LL's help, other than in very specific areas like help with publicity or technical assistance.   

Most things we wanted fixing -- the adult verification process and the DG, for example -- are greatly improved, if not completely fixed,   The days when we were arguing with Blondin and each other about new ideas for what should be done with various LL-owned sims on Zindra are over, thank heavens.   As a result, there's far less we need to talk with LL about, to my mind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive already given you examples of adult-content-relevant new ideas (such as the evolution of the DG to accept adult material that you continue to reference....that occured because of a new idea) that have helped shaped (and can continue to shape) the environment. so please dont pigeon-hole the new ideas dynamic. It's wide-open and that's important. Without new ideas, you are just showing up for an hour of reports from LL. Not sure about you, but my time has more value than that!

This thread is abt the point or pointlessness of meetings and seems to have wandered to include premium-account relationships. That's fine. Just remember that the premium-account members who are 'paying the way' so to speak are many, and they have differing voices, and they have diverse concerns. Many of them may very well want and appreciate new ideas to help foundational change or new ideas that benefit their investment and don't undermine it. Your opinion on what benefits them may vary greatly from mine, but in the end, without new ideas brought forth by those residents, the very investors we are speaking about are not being 'serviced' in an interactive way. Hence, we have meetings....

Customer Service, in its attempt to connect with those residents, include inworld meetings as part of its repertoire. Maybe it's all for show, maybe it's not (I'd say past performance has shown its definitely NOT all for show, but nowadays, who knows.....corporate winds keep changing). The point is, if we are going to continue to have meetings, they should be improved, because its a plain simple fact people have left and are leaving the process. That's a forboding sign for any interactive process.

PS - for the record, your characterization of history: 'arguing' w/ Blondin abt new ideas, avoids the basic point that many things were done. Those meetings started growing. A lot of talent attracted to table. (if you hear a lot of arguing, maybe peoepl feel passionate abt something and actual decisions are being made? Maybe residents are engaged? )

Most of the negative elements were finally resolved. Maybe you didnt like what was done, but a lot was done. It was dynamic and for those who wanted to participate, the table was open for anyone, including you, to present new ideas. THAT was a professional and healthy meeting model.

Now we simply must revitalize the meetings, or lose them......or switch to something far more innovative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ginette Pinazzo wrote:

Ive already given you examples of adult-content-relevant new ideas (such as the evolution of the DG to accept adult material that you continue to reference....that occured
because
of a new idea) that have helped shaped (and can continue to shape) the environment. so please dont pigeon-hole the new ideas dynamic. It's wide-open and that's important. Without new ideas, you are just showing up for an hour of reports from LL.
Not sure about you, but my time has more value than that!

You miss my point, which is that while I think it's an excellent idea to discuss new ideas at ACUG meetings, I think it's a waste of time unless those new ideas are something that involve LL doing something. If the new ideas don't involve some action on LL's part, then ACUG meetings are, to my mind, neither the time nor the place to discuss them.


Ginette Pinazzo wrote:

PS - for the record, your characterization of history: 'arguing' w/ Blondin abt new ideas, avoids the basic point that many things were done. Those meetings started growing. A lot of talent attracted to table. (if you hear a lot of arguing, maybe peoepl feel passionate abt something and actual decisions are being made? Maybe residents are engaged? )

Many things were done as a result of meetings with Blondin? Name three of significant value. I can think of the Vortex and getting that horrible glow turned off on all LL's builds on Zindra. What else springs to mind? They certainly won't include getting Adult Sims into the DG, nor getting the Age Verification process simplified -- we'd been asking for that for two years, nigh on, and it didn't happen till after he'd gone.    We didn't even get the landing point in the sim that used to be called "Zindra" fixed until after he left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntress Catteneo gave a useful response to the questions I posed earlier. The key to any problem-solving is to focus on the objective. Here is the answer Huntress offered to my question about that:
-
"I always took it as being to improve, develop, expand and promote the adult part of SL." 
-
This is a good start, but  too abstract to use for action planning.  It is really a mission statement.  Starting with that mission statement, the next step is to translate those abstract terms into concrete language that can be converted into action items 
-
There are two logical threads here:
  • What you want the adult part of SL to be in the future?
  • How you can promote this adult part?
There is a method issue that precedes these threads: how do you handle task-oriented groups in the context of a membership dispersed in space and time?
-
There is abundant literature on the management of task-oriented groups.  Google,on a search  just now, reported "About 5,070,000 results."  Much of this deals with face-to-face groups, but the discussions in this thread are largely about isues that are well known and have well established solutions,  
-
The article below suggests some arrangements that have been used to handle the membership dispersal problem.  Semi-Structured Brainstorming.  
-
You may also want to look at: Traditional BrainstormingThis article describes the procedures normally used in brainstorming.  You can see from the description why people do not  leave an effective brainstorming session complaining "My Ideas got ignored."
 -
Translation of mission statement to concrete language
-
The standard method of translation is to restate the objective in more concrete terms and to repeat that translation recursively till you have reached the level of action items.  This is where task-oriented groups come in.  Such a group is sometimes called a Special Working Group for (insert task name).  I like that because it becomes: SWIG for (specific) task.  
-
If you were to form such groups, very few of them would require the help of Lindens.  So you can have meetings as frequently as you wish and on a time schedule that suits you.  For brainstorming and planning, you could have multiple meetings on the same topic.   
***
***
Group roles needed in a task oriented group.
My answer to many complaints about groups (hereand elsewhere): "The problem is that nobody is filling these roles.  If you want to help,  try filling these roles yourself." 
"
-
Facilitator (Task Oriented)
Makes sure everyone equally shares.
-
Doesn’t let one person dominate the
conversation and/or the quiet one not
share their ideas or opinions.
-
Keeps everyone on task, on the agenda.
-
-
Time Keeper
Keeps track of the time allotted for the activity/discussion.
Informs the group of time limitations.
-
-
Recorder
Writes the group responses on a sheet of paper or newspaper.
-
-
Reporter
Shares with the larger group the results, comments or summaries of
the discussion of the work group
***
***
Brainstorming is only a start
Here are the main steps in accomplishing what you want to do:
A problem is your opportunity to show what you can do.
-
For those with literary inclinations, here is a suggestion:
Go here:
-
Read some of "Waiting for Godot" with a slight change.  Everywhere you see Godot, replace that with the Lindens.   
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:


JeanneAnne wrote:

Again, per the Wikipedia, only 233 members made what I'd call a livable wage (~$60K/yr.) in 2009 from SL income. From even this modest income would have to be subtracted the $5K that, according to you, they paid in tier ($420x12). So, okay, for a couple hundred people holding a premium account and paying tier is worth it, more or less. But why do the other ~80K do it? Why do they spend so much money making Linden Labs executives and shareholders rich, when, per LL's business model, it's perfectly easy to have great fun in SL without spending a cent of real money on it?


I don't see how that follows. I certainly don't make a liveable wage out of SL but I certainly do make considerably more than the cost of my tier and premium subscription. I've got a hobby I enjoy (making scripted BDSM toys and furniture) and it brings me in a few hundred dollars a month.   In what way am I spending money?

Sounds like you're one of the 4,267 people *4,500 (Gavin's figure) - 233 (from Wikipedia)* who made a net profit from SL without making enuf from it to live on. Why do you do it? You answered that question, Innula: "I've got a hobby I enjoy..." I respect that. Out of 21.3 million registered users, you're in the elite .02%. Good work!

I wonder, tho, how much LL skims off from the fruits of your labors in premium membership fees, tier & content upload costs. Do you ever feel economically parasitized by the corporate leeches?

Btw, your products, or others like them, are why I broke up with my last SL boyfriend. He wanted to use them on me!! :matte-motes-wink-tongue:

Jeanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta say, I too follow that point.  A meeting that is worthless that you don't have to go to and provides no benefit, then again, you don't need to go to so, what's the point of complaining?  I can think of 100's of pointless and worthless meetings that I don't attend or have any value in but why complain?

Furthermore, these meetings are all posted and though I used to go to them, lately, I see them as idle babble and have no interest or time to attend.  4 Am is early, yes I know and in my case, I have a career and am at my office all day.  I don't think my firm would appreciate me playing video games on billing hours time so, I can't make it. Should I complain that I have a profession?  Certainly not.

However, if there is a specific request or need that requires attention, why not let someone know who is going or submit a request at the meeting for them to comment on.  As much as we all bash the lab rats, they do from time to time listen but to do this, we need to be concise and vocal as with dealing with any other bureaucracy.

Tinkerer's sub committee is also another great idea. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are fabulous resources and research, Thinkerer. We had, during the previous 'administration' adopted many of those procedures and roles, and even moved into brainstorming and subcommittee-style structures. Very effective! I believe that such structures and processes as you describe, and that we have had, create a very professional and influential environment, which happened to attract, rather than discourage resident involvement.

Having said all of that, I will also add that meeting purpose matters most, and if it is NOT the purpose to have professional and influential meetings, that needs ot be ascertained. If, for example, LL (and residents) really just want hour-long reports of LL actions, or complaint sessions, that needs to be ascertained also.

I think the frustration many feel (such as Huntress) can certainly be, at least partially, attributed to a meeting format alteration that has removed stable, dependable processes and become unpredicatble or inconsistent. It's not very attarctive to slot time for a meeting if you feel you have zero input or have zero idea what to expect once you get there.

I often quote the fomation of the Zindra Help Vortex itself as an amazing example of effective resident-driven processes in action and tried to encapsulate the story here:

https://sites.google.com/site/zindrahelpvortex/home/how-the-zindra-help-vortex-began-a-story-of-cooperation-in-second-life

Other Resources:

This was the original meeting format, more or less:

https://sites.google.com/site/zindrabusiness/home/meeting-format-and-how-to-get-on-the-agenda

And this was a proposed set of improvements for the next level:

https://sites.google.com/site/zindrabusiness/home/better-acug-meetings-part-2

Finally, about brainstorming procedure (as we have used previously):

https://sites.google.com/site/zindrabusiness/home/brainstorming-teams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great checklist of questions, Thinkerer. My own responses:

1.  What is the objective of the meeting?  If you don't know the objective the meeting is bound to be pointless, at least to you.  

A: We have received some mission statements from LL about bringing residents and value forward, organic movements, etc. I'd say the objective varies per resident, and is multipurpose. My own short answer: To provide audience for resident issues, resident proposals and (going the other direction) communicate LL news to the masses in an official capacity.....a 2-way dialogue

1a. Do the people understand the objective well enough to know when the group has achieved it?

Some do. Some do not.

2. Does everybody share the objective.  People who have a different objective should go to a different meeting.  You would only have people with different objectives if the meeting ojbective is directed at some kind of coordination of the different objectives.  

You can also have this dysfunction if communication is an issue, or consistency with objective is an issue. I believe both issues exist.

3. What is the agenda? If there is no agenda, the meeting is without purpose. Don't waste you time on it unless that fits with your agenda.  

We once had an openly viewable, publicly-accessible agenda system but that has been removed. At current, we have no such system. The agenda is a true 'mystery' until the meeting begins.

4. Do the agenda items clearly relate to the stated objective?  If not, what objective do the serve?  (It is OK to answer this with "The only objective is to say we had a meeting.") 

Sometimes they are relevant. Sometimes they sway off-objective and even counter it.

5. What Items would you like to put on the agenda?  What happens if you suggest these items in the meeting?

At present, items are not publicly input or reveiwed and survive at the sole discretion of an unknown, mysterious process. Also, this forum supposedly exists as a place to 'lead' with ideas and discussions that eventtually get into meetings, but even that material may or may not enter the agenda based on the  unknown, mysterious process.

6. Can you find other people who would like to work with you on some of these items?

Yes, and we do that regularly

7. What happens if you offer to form a subcommittee to work on these items?

In current climate, those actions are often ignored because they are not part of the immediate agenda

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like it or not, there's very little similarity between business meetings and Linden meetings with residents.  That's because the power asymmetry is so overwhelming.  Yes, our fees pay their salaries; serfs paid for the wealth of the nobility, too, but that didn't give them seats in Ye Olde Boardroom.

So is it really any wonder that there's not a lot of patience, now, for the old practice of bullying Blondin with order of agenda items and hours of meta-discussion over which quaint procedure to adopt?

If people feel compelled to waste more time designing process completely irrelevant to the actual meetings, or pining for the halcyon meetings of yore, you can count me out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree.

Since Linden Lab is the equivalent of the estate manager for Zindra (adult mainland estate), there is a need for a meeting at predictable intervals where the residents can discuss practical issues regarding the Zindra estate. This is not the AUCG meetings.

Next there is a need for a meeting where general adult marketing and policy issues can be discussed, but this it not specific to Zindra and is possibly the AUCG meeting. 

In general I believe there is a need for LL to make a more formal structure for content developers in line with ie. Apple's or Microsoft's developer programs where you usually pay a moderate fee to be a member. Perhaps this could be one of the perks for premium accounts, where you actually have to be a premium account holder to participate in such meetings, briefings, and get access to development plans and discussions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Virtual worlds such as this are unique in that content creation (what the reidents are supplying in the relationship, as well as other forms of investments) is a large, appreciable factor.

Add to this the 'people' aspect of the business. (social connections) and concepts like 'custromer service' assume an entirely new level of importance.

If there is 'not a lot of patience', that's a problem, and the basic fact is: people have left and are leaving this process. Denying the problem exists is, well, denial. I'd like think everyone wants more involvement from residents if it is positive. (if they don't eant, that's yet another problem!)

They are not business meetings in any traditional sense, but they are very unique and can often be what the community wants them to be, if there is consensus. This has been proven over time as these meetings (not just ACUG) have changed format and tone many times\, often due to resident engagement.

Really, if residents aren't proactively involved in the experience, its hardly in-keeping with SL culture and dynamics to wish for a passive, one-sided situation. The challenge is to attarct more participants, to encourage growth. This means user-input, of all types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ginette Pinazzo wrote:

Really, if residents aren't proactively involved in the experience, its hardly in-keeping with SL culture and dynamics to wish for a passive, one-sided situation. The challenge is to attarct more participants, to encourage growth. This means user-input, of all types.

No one is saying they want "a passive, one-sided situation".   What I'm saying, at least, is that I want to use the opportunity afforded by the presence of a representative of LL to take up matters that LL can realistically do something about, whether it's by facilitating things in some way or by fixing something only they can fix.   Most projects don't need directly to involve LL; in consequence, they can better be discussed directly in these forums or at meetings announced in them.

If a group of people think they have a good idea for promoting adult content, or any aspect of it, in SL, and it doesn't involve LL actually doing anything or giving them free land,  there's nothing to stop them from going ahead and doing it.    They don't need to come to a meeting to seek Viale's, or  anyone else's, approval, and it's a waste of everyone's time if they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. if people have projects that dont involve direct LL action, sure they dont need to discuss them at ACUG (unless ACUG turns out to be a good place to share info of interest to community, which has been done by many, about projects that have nothing to do w/ LL initiatives). For example, the adult hub is a resident-run project. Isn't it ok to hear abt it at ACUG? Or are you against info-sharing as well as 'new ideas'? if you started a newsletter and were looking for residents to help, why not mention it at ACUG? The format can be what the community wants it to be. LL has directly told the community in past that the meetings can be what the residents want, if there is consensus.

2. What matters LL can 'realistically do something about' varies with the day of week, season and position of stars. We've all seen that. Besides, those matters are often matters brought up in meetings by residents and are new ideas. It's been done many times.  If you consider this level of involvement a waste of time, maybe inworld meetings are not for you. I think it's healthy to recognize that everyone brings different ideas and perspectives to the table, and the more positive inpout that can be attracted, the better.

This is after all, a thread about residents' frustration about the meetings. Maybe it would be constructive to think about ways to improve that situation. It's never a good idea to discount genuine opinions and pretend they have no basis, and its always a good idea to think upon them to address them as incusively as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is 'not a lot of patience', that's a problem, and the basic fact is: people have left and are leaving this process. 

What there is not patience for is another round of devising a procedure to define a process for establishing objectives around discussing formation of the European Parliament of Adult Content in Second Life.

It's my impression that the meetings are managed as they are now to curtail a problem.  I'm not sure I can or should be more explicit, but I'd suggest that the meetings will adapt to accomodate more productive topics discussed here in the forums, but continued beating of dead horses will not encourage such adaptation.

And trying to change the meetings before changing the content is putting the cart before one of those dead horses.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...