Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. The nature and tenor of the responses in this thread strengthen my conviction that the forums' regulars do not run viable businesses inworld; do not have any customers; do not even log into SL. Otherwise they would sympathize with "the little dressmakers," as they were once scornfully called when copy-bots first appeared. Adding $10 to a price can price some customers out of business. I would certainly not raise all my rental prices $10, not only is it work, it would just incur wrath from people who have paid the same price for years. I don't raise prices unless I am offering something new; I don't lower them unless I am packing in more rentals to a space, i.e. with skyboxes. $10 is not an increment that makes sense for rentals anyway. I have never been wrong in responding to every single Linden change of this type by selling or abandoning land. You can never go wrong by paying less tier.
  3. Um, no. Newbies either don't have money or don't want to spend it yet on things on rentals. Occasionally I'll get a newbie but it's almost by accident, or they've just read the search/places ads like anyone else. Of course, I'm familiar with the narrowed eyes and scorn from certain forums regs who imagine that any proposal made by me will only involve somehow drumming up business for my rentals, which is ridiculous. I only lose money on subsidized areas for newbies and often they don't "convert" to higher-payer rentals but move to islands so I am merely prepping them for other merchants that are probably the regs' friends. It's funny how this kind of instant hatred and suspicion of anything involving commerce, or any proposal at all, isn't then applied *to the Mentors program revival idea*. It should be. Once again, if you have teleport boards that you institute as paid ads, people in business with stores, clubs, live music, and yes, rentals, will have an incentive to help newbies. The newbies in turn will be able to pick from a variety of options of "things to do". it seems very hard for people to get started and some don't even seem to be able to search in the search interface as they presumably do in Google (but I've learned not to assume even that!). A board is easy to click on inworld; it is easier than figuring out "destinations" on the log-on or at the top of the screen; the Lindens have even tested such a system briefly but didn't give it enough time -- and also put their FIC friends in it, so it only replicated the same lack of retention, as new people were not interested in the things of the founding geeks. Again, in RL, you are not greeted by a Mentor who is the Mayor's friend or relative when you land at JFK or Grand Central Station, you use search, you look at ads, you look at brochures in a hotel you may have selected in advance. In the same way, the splash page of Second Life should have that equivalent of a Bookings.com or an Expedia.com, where you see a square that says "Live Music" or "Shopping" or "Poetry Reading" or "Sex Club" and you CLICK ON IT AND GO THERE. This shouldn't be so hard, people. And the Lindens should sell the splash page ad space, too. They want to earn revenue from methods besides rolling out more servers -- ad sales are one way they can do that. Every form of media since time immemorial has sold ad space as well as subscriptions. There is no reason why the publishers of a virtual world shouldn't do this. That means teleport board ad space; splash page ad space; highway billboard ad space; special events ad space; whatever. It can all be regulated and done tastefully.
  4. I'm glad you've stepped up to say all this, it's true, and I don't doubt that I don't know the half of the abuses that went on. It seems if this is the case, and these are Mentors with a very narrow scope of setting up homes (that are already set up? I'm not getting this), then the Lindens should make sure they aren't the same ones selling kits to adapt the homes or other home-related products, or their friends. But honestly, I don't see this as either necessary or a good idea, and once again, it merely creates a class of residents lording it over others, often not really helping, but only gaining social or commercial advantage.
  5. My avatar is me... 😘 (below is my blathering about it all... read at your own risk) yet, when I’m in SL I feel more like a childlike version of me,... more open, playful, full of wonder, curiosity and adventure. I think I’m more fearless, because of the safety net that is always present in-world.... for example, if a guy comes on too strong, aggressive or abusive in an instant I’m outta there... can’t do that so easily in rl. I mean in sl we can fly, teleport to any environment like an a beach, a space station, a castle or an orgy...hehe and create real friendships and relationships. I think it allows us to open-up, uncover and live virtually, a version of our true selves. Like an alcoholic who becomes mean or the life of the party when under the influence, I believe these behaviors are people’s true deep desires and selves, released from the captivity of rl! Likewise I find myself released in various ways in sl. I’m more caring, respectful, confident, sexy (*****ty), open and honest, because I have nothing to lose and everywhere and anywhere to lose it in. IMHO yes it’s a game and one we all bring a part of ourselves to whether or not we own up to it. We are all our avatars
  6. Well I am only taking the current era in consideration when deciding how to dress appropriate The essential reason why a form of dressing does invoke a response is nature. If you are presenting yourself in a very attractive sexual way, this will initiate a response in those that are attracted to you, that's just nature doing its job. Though how they act on that reaction, that is what matters. A look, a smile, a head turning, that's all a response, but generally not considered rude or inappropriate, but a response non the less.
  7. In general, Zeta, I agree with you: contexts are important in establishing what is "appropriate" dress. However, those contexts, and the rules associated with them, are not fixed absolutes, but rather dynamic and always changing. 60 years ago, you might well have been sent home from a clerical job for wearing slacks, or a skirt that was above the knee, or a blouse that was too tight or showed "too much" cleavage. These conventions dictating the relationship between dress and context are continually changing, and will do so in the future. And while I don't think it very likely that nudity will be acceptable at most places of employment in the near future, the essential point remains valid: if there is no absolute, eternal, fixed way of determining what is or is not appropriate, then one similarly can't say that there is a fixed and eternally "correct" way of responding to them. If what one era calls "inappropriate" is deemed entirely ok in another, then there is no essential reason, beyond cultural context, why one form of dress (or undress) should provoke a particular kind of response.
  8. While I personally no longer have the patience to rejoin them if the Mentor program came back, I am all for its return. Yes, there were some bad apples/users who abused the program - and? Short of not having the program at all, the best you can do is attempt to mitigate/prevent it.
  9. Today
  10. I don't think we are conflating these things; sexual assault is clearly very different from verbal harassment. But we are acknowledging the fact that the same "justification" is frequently used in both the milder, and the more serious, of these kinds of behaviours: that the woman "is asking for it." And yes, you're absolutely right: violent sexual assault, as we understand it in RL, is impossible in SL. So too is sex, but a virtual version of it happens all the time here, and is apparently effective enough that people keep doing it. I would never claim that I am being "assaulted" in SL by someone who emotes to me, without my consent, that they are doing something physical to my avatar. But that doesn't mean that being told that someone is doing something unasked for and unpleasant is not still, in some way quite different from the RL thing, an unwanted experience that does have an emotional impact, in just the same way that virtual sex does. Well, we may have to agree to disagree here. One issue with calling someone a "sl*t" because she's wearing provocative clothing is that it conflates her appearance with her supposed behaviour. I can wear something provocative, and be very much not having sex with lots of people, which is the generally accepted meaning of "sl*t." In fact, I do on occasion wear things that might be considered sexually provocative in SL, and I am as chaste and virginal (well, for the last 7 or 8 years anyway) as the undriven snow. There is no correlation between my clothing on such occasions and what I do. Another important point, of course, is that we are (I hope) well past the point where a woman employing her sexual freedom should be stigmatized in this way. However one might choose to represent oneself for RP purposes or for "titillation," I'm pretty sure that you'll agree that that word is, or should be, meaningless as a way of actually describing a woman's sexual behaviour. And the corollary of both of these points -- that how one dresses need not reflect one's behaviours, and that the term itself is no longer an appropriate way of describing a woman exercising her sexual freedom -- is that no one has the right to call me that name based purely on how I dress -- or even on whether I'm having lots of sex with lots of people. In that context, the only meaningful use of that term is its employment by the person herself, usually to signal an interest in a particular kind of sexual encounter. Finally, I don't think this is at all about "law." I think it's about accepted cultural norms, and about changing these.
  11. Maybe one of the Moles overheated and they hosed them down? Weather would be amazing.
  12. Lol, definately not, haven't played that for probably over 8 years (more I think). It was just so odd, and I remember thinking umm this shouldn't be happening, we don't have rain in SL unless it's particles or something by a resident on their own land. I was kinda excited at the same time thinking oh great, maybe this is just for Bellisseria. I might have to scout the area again and see if I can get it to happen again (doubt it though). Of course it could be some top secret LL experiment for a new feature going on (I wish)...we'll have to put together a team like one of those alien conspiracy shows and try and find out what's happening!
  13. Try running multiple tabs with a sequence of prime number intervals.
  14. That is because its in the proper context. If you go to a Halloween party you wear scary costumes, if you go to nude beach you wear nothing, if you go to work you wear appropriate work outfit. Or would you be insulted if you show up at work nakid and they send you back home?
  15. Are you sure you weren't playing the Sims? I've been getting somewhat confused between the two lately
  16. In yesterday's Meet & Greet one of questions or brief topics was on how nice it would be to have a real 'environment' in SL (rain etc.) and it reminded me of something strange on one of the new regions...a couple of weeks ago (maybe less) I was exploring and taking photos (I was standing by the houses on the beach areas up around Jamesborough I think). Houses were up and there were trees etc. in place. As I was caming round to frame a shot all of a sudden there was a rain shower. I was very confused. I looked around to see if anyone else was around or if there was some object that could be generating it but there was nothing. It only lasted for a few seconds, and I wasn't mentally quick enough to capture it in snapshot because I was a bit stunned. Very odd...would love to hear any theories on this! As the region wasn't released yet I can't see how it could have been an object from a resident. Equally LL haven't introduced this kind of environment feature. So I can't explain it. I know we have our Bellisseria ghosts, but spooky rain too?...come on now...
  17. Congratulations Claire and what a gorgeous snap of your new front door!
  18. Yes, and Qie's opinion - unless the quoted post was in jest - is that those who signed ought to be boycotted. By at least Qie. People have the right to an opinion. They do not have the right to be free of consequence.
  19. ...equally fair but involves changing the system which would divert resources.
  20. Please Qie, don't go there. People have a right to have an opinion even if it's one we disagree with.
  21. I certainly agree that FOMO is real. I also play a farming game and I tell you people get upset over little things, like missing out on daily prizes, or freebies. I also work for a cell phone company and it is the same thing when new plans come out or new phones. People want instant gratification.
  22. I think Thorine has responded effectively, above, but I'll just give you my own take on this. You've chosen a pretty radical example here to make your point, but I'd like to bring it back to the very real. I used to live in a neighbourhood which featured, along the main street, at least one, or sometimes two, sports bars on every block. During warm weather, the sidewalk in front of each of these would generally be crowded -- at almost any time of day you might imagine -- with men. (I need hardly add that women were not welcome in such places, unless they were servers.) To go grocery shopping, or make my way to the streetcar stop would very often require me to walk 4 blocks past a number of these places. I wasn't provocatively dressed, and certainly not naked, but it was like running a gauntlet. Comments, whistles, catcalls, and even the occasional casual "pat" or "bump" were the rule. In other words, to repeat the point I made to Gadget above, what I was wearing or not wearing didn't matter: it happened anyway. I don't have much of an opinion on whether people should be allowed to walk naked down the street, to be honest, but in my city, it is legal for a woman to be topless. It doesn't much matter: it's beside the point, because what a woman is attired in isn't causing or preventing these behaviours in any case. Yes, I could block the person. (I don't: I generally just ignore them or, if their remarks are particularly egregious, I give them an earful.) Or I could just not go to that place at all, right? Sort of the same way I could choose a different, if much less convenient, route to the streetcar stop in example I gave above. Or not go dancing, or to a bar, or out to dinner, or out past sundown, etc. etc. etc. All of these changes to my routine would doubtless make such inappropriate actions less common. But, I am not the one doing these things. SO . . . I shouldn't have to. We really don't require advice on how to avoid creeps. We need people to stop being creeps.
  23. That far off? Has something more been said?
  24. His point was clear to me, mine was an additional insight, just to muddy the waters more 😀 It's hard to debate the point you raise when violent assault is conflated with propositioning or even flirting (which was what your original post was referencing, as I understood it, as violent assault is impossible in SL). You said "YOU do not get to define who is or is not a "sl*t," or even who looks like one: that is their choice and their determination." Is that really reasonable? I do think such an appearance is "open season" for any sexual advances within the bounds of the law. Unless we curtail human interaction to such an extent that we have to engage our lawyers to say Hi to someone, there are bound to be miscommunications between the sexes. I think Gadget was pointing out (he is free to correct me ofc) that deliberately making the chance of miscommunication worse isn't helpful.
  25. I think everyone who makes their Real Life livelihood dependent on their Second Life business is to blame themselves by 100%. Not Linden Lab and their changes in fees and Premium Perks, not the other residents who might not buy stuff as often as they used to, only these creators or sellers themselves. If they considered their Second Life income as some side-money coming from a hobby, not as their main income, then there wouldn't be a problem at all with those fee changes. 🙄
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...