Codex Alpha
-
Posts
1,431 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Knowledge Base
Posts posted by Codex Alpha
-
-
43 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:
I mean if we are gonna use an RL example. I am certainly not gonna wanna chit chat with someone who nonchalantly comes into my house. I am telling them to get out right away or I will call the cops and take them out by force. How is that any different than someone using an orb and kicking you home instantly?
Only the most exceptional and extremely rare case is someone just going to walk into your house, and I also believe the majority of users in Second Life are doing the same thing, and if they go too far in doing so it is out of curiosity and nothing malicious.
Yet depending on the bylaws in your particular city, it is a reasonable expectation as part of a civil and free society in the West, that people are allowed reasonable access such as knocking on your door to say hello as a neighbour, or perhaps a Girl Guide is selling cookies, or a salesperson selling roofing or painting services wants to give you a business card, or another is dropping off a flyer, etc. Yes some people don't like that but most accept that it is a concession in a civil society, so don't automatically send the hounds against people or blow their head off for daring to knock on their door.
The analogy we're talking about is more like walking past someone's property, and your hand happens to cross their little white picket fence and they are are killed by a sentry gun on the roof.
One measure is reasonable and fair and still respects people's property and rights and allows the free movement of people in conducting business or non-malicious actions - and the other of course is clearly ridiculous.
3 hours ago, Rolig Loon said:And, aside from the fun of hearing each other talk, is the conversation doing anything more than chasing the same tired horse around the barnyard?
I think it may have started off as a practical problem needing a solution, and has morphed into a study of the thoughts and attitudes of Second Life users, and how that will affect us as a community moving forward.
exception: surpassing what is common or usual or expected, far beyond what is usual in magnitude or degree,deviating widely from a norm
relating to bell curves and generalization (on the fringes, not common, not average, exceptional)
as an argument: Arguing The Exception
-
4
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Bree Giffen said:
To pan and zoom the SL camera you press ALT and hold down the left mouse button on something and move your mouse around. Using CTRL allows a pan up down instead of a pan zoom.
I think that the part where you hold down the left mouse button can be removed where you could simply move the pointer over an object and press the ALT key to immediately pan and zoom by just moving the mouse. This removes the constant mouse button press which helps with carpal tunnel issues. It also makes laptop track pad usage a lot easier.
What do you think? Useful? Maybe an optional tick box to change this behavior? Is this already a hidden option somewhere?
I wished it replicated orbital movement around a selected object like an 3D program, or ease of use and going into a 'fly mode' without moving the avatar as another method.
Still not used to working in Blender, then trying to do something in SL and having to use the clunky cam move controls
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:
To this point, I've been riding along Route 9 for the past couple of hours. I've yet to encounter any orbs let alone a 0 sec orb. Take note, also, that my driving skills leave a lot to be desired. I've veered off dozens of times and a few times on purpose. Nothing. Nada.
So, we're all discussing something of a rarity on mainland. Why on earth would LL bother changing something that effects such a small percentage of people on BOTH sides of the discussion?
Because experiences may vary between people and their usage of the platform. As many have pointed out how they have allegedly been assaulted or otherwise put upon in one way or another - their experience on the platform may vary from others - and dismissing their concerns or denying their personal experience doesn't help to come to a solution.
If the OP did not experience this, or if it was truly a 'rare' occurrence then they probably wouldn't have bothered to post about it. Neither would I in my own recent post.
-
1
-
2
-
-
The only 'force' I see exerted on anyone today is some legitimate 'explorer' or people traversing Mainland regions - with the expectation that LL's promise of 'exploration' and 'discovery' are met.
"Force", as defined in context as 'compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing' is objectively and observably and factually being exerted on random individuals, taking control of their avatars against their will - and not 'reasonably' pushing them to a nearby parcel or safe parcel in the region - but ejecting them back to their home - which has been reported as severely affecting user experience in Second Life.
Nowhere in the OP or responses that request that orbs when used are set to a more reasonable delay 'forces' any land owner to do anything, other than be considerate of other's usage of the platform.
The claim that LL doesn't read forums or take people's experience into consideration when moderating, updating and improving the platform is false. If the posters who claim this truly believed there own words, they would never see another person's posts, requests or suggestions as such a threat - or they wouldn't fight so hard against it.
If they have the time to moderate the forums and especially the relatively rare 'hot' topics such as this one, it doesn't take much effort to write a note about both party's concerns and discuss it at the next platform staff meeting.
Force: Use of a compelling force that exerts one's will over another's control of their avatar - and without their consent. This can be physical as in real life, or by the use of technological means or process inworld.
strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power
violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing
-
1
-
1
-
3
-
1
-
-
. sorry better to stay on topic if possible
-
1
-
-
A lot of pages and a lot of things said, when the most simplest of solutions could solve the issue, protect the privacy of those who need it the most, and to allow us 'explorers' to Explore and Discover as Second Life promises it's customers by;
- setting orb delays to minimum 15 seconds from within the API, overriding any countering scripts.
Not one solid argument has been made as to why 15 seconds or more is not enough to attain their privacy or to secure their belongings, or stop someone sitting on their sofa.
Other solutions have been presented, I've presented my own, but in the end, sometimes the simplest solution is best - and the rest as clever as they might be - are just over-complicating things.
The state of things as it is for myself, is that I have no desire to 'explore' anymore, and the land that I rented and another that I purchased from 'exploring' I now only teleport to and from. I'm surrounded on all sides by ban lines, with only one side that is open to mobility and only because it is partially abandoned land and a small strange strip for sale beside it.
I repeat, for those who create and sell things, there have been many sales, rentals and purchases from 'exploring' mainland regions - artists,scripters, builders, renters, land sellers got a lot of business from me that way just coming across them (and as well as my network that used to be on SL).
The irony is that now I am forced to live as if I was in a private parcel, without needing one, because that's the experience. Teleporting in,teleporting out. Others teleporting in, teleporting out... There is absolutely NO point having an open world or for LL to maintain the logistics and resources to process it - if the majority of usage is teleporting in and teleporting out - along with practical usage/research/observation that people are leaning towards wanting privacy.
Although I am a person who is very much open and accepting of being open in a publicly accessible region, and others may want to get 100% privacy without paying for it - the result and practical experience would be better served by methods adopted by many other platforms at this point - serving up on-demand, single instanced 'experiences'.
This would take the privacy landowners issues and solve them by granting them what they wish - at whatever affordable price LL would offer - remove the compartmentalized parcel from the Mainland, opening it up to other users who are more open to a community experience, - thus removing the need for disrupting security measures - that will affect the positive experience of other users.
EDIT: LOL sad that I have to do this LOL but still kinda funny.
Words used in this post and their context
A 'solid' argument: of good substantial quality or kind, made firmly and well, prudent, serious in purpose or character-
1
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:
Back on topic, I believe the source of many cases of incivility on the internet, in social media - is that sometimes individuals don't just want to be "heard", or even "agreed with". Sometimes - and I have seen this more recently (not so much on this thread) - individuals want to both a) have their say, and b) have the last word.
Now, I don't see that as any kind of "fault" - but it's almost as if we all need to wear caps showing our Myers-Briggs code to give everyone a clue. Sometimes when speaking with another who must "have the last word", you don't know that at all and start to feel "attacked" (or perhaps they do).
For these cases, wouldn't it be great to have a "mute conversation" function? Unfortunately all the "mute"/"block" functions on the forum at least, still show you breadcrumbs. "You have chosen to ignore" etc. In my opinion, better mute/block functionality, including for "threads" (not just people) would be super awesome!
I'll give you a "for instance". Let's say you had no problem with anyone in this thread - but you never wanted to see it again. There's no way to do that, it will show up in your "unread content" feed. And if the current "block" functionality were extended to "threads", you'd still see an indication of the activity in "unread content"!
I think adding better mute/block - and adding it for threads not just people - would go a long way towards easing those who are "triggered" in the Forum.
Heyo, another great idea from yours truly!
You guys are EXPERT at reframing things. Very interesting.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:
This you?
Can't stop can you?
Nearly every response you make is designed to incite a defensive response in your target, no matter what it was that they said, and you frequently join dogpiles too.
-
1
-
3
-
1
-
-
And.. look at them dogpile... they can't stop.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:
Thanks, guys! I was losing my confidence there, due to Codex's harsh response.
Please stop framing my posts as malicious, hostile, 'harsh' or any other portrayal that basically begs a defensive response - and is not very conducive to friendly discussion, which this should be. Constantly inciting someone else by making accusations to their motivations or portraying them (or anyone) in the illest of light is not 'civil' discussion.
You can respond to someone else's posts without having to poke me or others in the process.
Please stop, and address the ideas that someone presents, and stop the personal attacks. Thank you.
1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:*Edit* Your use of "clearly" (underlined and all) comes across as caustic and sarcastic. What the heck did I do, except be sensitive? Be cool, man. You can do it!
I am not responsible for your reaction to what I post - that is your responsibility, not mine.
Unless I post a 😠 at you, assuming the best of people's intent is best.
-
2
-
3
-
-
18 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:
Your concept of "clearly" may not match other's. I've seen you use "clearly" in other posts. Bad form, in my opinion. Like trying to shame people because you aren't clear, by insisting you are "clearly" clear.
This is so, so tedious.
Whether or not you were "clear" is irrelevant. I was providing an alternative viewpoint.
And I clarified the context in which I was using it. Clarifying or rephrasing a statement is a valid procedure in a conversation, or having to nitpick a word and agreeing on a definition so that conversation can be understood and continued. It may be tedious, but that's what happens sometimes while communicating with others.
I don't use words as 'concepts' nor do I make my own definitions for them. I use words that are defined in a world-respected dictionary so that we can all agree on their meaning and usage (context) so that we can comprehend the ideas presented.
Can we get back to discussing the topic or ideas now?
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:
"Getting staff involved" - is also part of "encouraging the user to take personal responsibility".
The context I was using was "A personal decision or action is one you make on your own".
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Prokofy Neva said:
If ban or block or ignore or a security orb were enough to control my experience in SL, you'd never hear from me. But you do because griefers exploit not weaknesses of tools, but people's psychology and do social engineering.
So that's how they conceive of things like making alts with versions of my name or my business name so that there is "brand confusion". That's why they join groups that seem to be for a good cause, such as a group around a temple or church or mosque, and then wear the tag and spam racist rants at people.
That's why they join groups that are open or easily joined and then spam in them to tarnish my reputation or others.
That's why they spawn prims on no-autoreturn land that affects the whole sim. My autoreturn in a shared virtual world is not enough.
That's why they manage to talk their way into situations, playing on people's reluctance to be seen as censoring or canceling.
That's why they pick up causes like "Impeace Bush" that they believe are "bullet proof".
Etc. etc. etc.
I don't know Bansar but there are entire studies like Clay Shirky's "The Group is Its Own Worst Enemy on this problem (which I have written a rebuttal to). Shirky was wildly touted by game professors long ago in 2006 and is forgotten today, interestingly.
Sure, don't take my opinions on the matter as absolute - I'm not a polarized person.
For myself I support a notion to reserve the extreme tools for extreme cases. When block and mute is more than enough to eliminate a problem (for small offenses or misunderstandings) - then staff should be left alone, or calls to ban them is an over-reaction. Most issues can be dealt with by these tools. My argument was is that many don't use those tools BEFORE going to a more extreme measure. What can happen is that people can be framed in a much darker light than should be and have been subjected to over-discipline.
I've worked in complaint departments, and the customer will ALWAYS exaggerate their encounter, or depth of their frustration - it's a normal tactic to amplify to communicate that a wrong has happened. I'm not criticizing that, it's just what happens and it takes a measure of patience and professionalism to first be able to empathize with the complainant, and then to assign an actual realistic level to the incident.
I am not disagreeing that in the case that you have presented, it is extreme and exceptionally hostile behaviour, and repeatedly - like bypassing security systems, blocks, using alts, etc - Of course that needs a bit more staff interaction.
Remember my argument first is 'give and encourage the user to take personal responsibility in managing their experience of the platform and others' - the most basic layers like block and mute, etc - then only get staff involved when it becomes behaviour that is sustained, bypasses, or goes to alts etc.
Like I said, if the large banhammer is used for every user or occasion not only is it unfair, but innocent people get mashed in the process as well.
Of course even the tools can be weaponized by nasty types if they want (group bans, sharing IP lists, etc) but that's a whole other topic.
1 hour ago, Prokofy Neva said:If ban or block or ignore or a security orb were enough to control my experience in SL, you'd never hear from me. But you do because griefers exploit not weaknesses of tools, but people's psychology and do social engineering.
Yes, some people have become experts at 'skirting the rules' and that is also a form of trolling and griefing - and that's much harder to combat because there is nothing to report - and the reporter will seem deluded or paranoid.
1 hour ago, Prokofy Neva said:I don't know Bansar but there are entire studies like Clay Shirky's "The Group is Its Own Worst Enemy on this problem (which I have written a rebuttal to). Shirky was wildly touted by game professors long ago in 2006 and is forgotten today, interestingly.
That was a typo, but it kind of fits a bit haha. I've quickly looked up the book you cited and got a quick overview.
Clay Shirky - The Group is Its Own Worst Enemy (PDF)
I'll have to read it a bit more first, but yes it seems to address things that I have noticed in just the last 5 years or so, and with the advent of Sansar, VR Chat where I noticed it the most enough to want to look up the psychology - I know it as "Early Groups Can be Toxic and Detrimental to Growth" kind of "Community Manager" type knowledge, but this is similar in thought regarding how groups can work against themselves for positive change and why.
Can't comment on this too hard yet, haven't read it but will
Edit: Also a related resource in similar fashion and relating to the challenges of creating online worlds:
The Lessons Of LucasFilm's Habitat (Stanford U.)
1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:What's interesting to me about this part is, depending on how one does business with Second Life, they (or Tilia) already have your RL ID!
And some of that is necessary, and is needed in some cases - if one is pulling an income out of SL - this is needed for tax purposes.
Also, many other corporations may have personal details. Yet they are all compartmentalized and so have (theoretical/ethical) limits on the use of said information.
What Provoky proposes is a UniqueUserID, which is not a new idea - but it aims to identify an individual worldwide and under ONE governing body - has far more implications and issues.
"The Right To Be Forgotten" or as how I would know it - practicing patience and forgiveness, is an important concept for us all - as we all screw up, we all lose it, we all do dumb things - and never being forgiven, never having our trespasses 'forgotten' - can cause great harm to the individual - and especially on a global basis.
Social Credit has this same aim, and is practiced widely in China. No second chances, no forgiveness. We either behave a certain way or get put out of society.
-
I think this topic 'discussion' in it's entirety will speak for itself, and how it relates to the OP, and what Philip has to deal with and the challenges.
-
2
-
2
-
-
. I keep forgetting dealing with manipulators and weirdos never works out. I'll just report instead.
-
1
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:
Now you're asking the right questions.
And this is what metaverse developers will have to figure out. I don't envy them, either.
Phillip has a good handle on what it takes and what happens when civility is lost, first hand while developing HiFi .
He couldn't solve it so recommended to users that they run their own servers, manage their own ban lists so they can restrict anyone they want, and have any rules they want - HiFi would just be the backbone of a disjointed universe of feifdoms run by tyrants - which of course all of them would be empty.
Ebbe knew this as well on his own project, but he either seemed unwilling or unable to do what was necessary to bring everyone together, and eventually the same mentality rotted out that platform's core too. Everyone banned everyone else until there was no one left.
From what I see hasn't been much civility at all, just people demanding things.
A similar thing could be seen on chat rooms I and others hosted. As we moved to whatever was the most functional at the time, the same people would gather in the same groups, with the same results. Didn't matter what platform it was. Don't blame the platform, it's the people who make or break it.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:
Right on que..
.. and hilarious.
Yes, because the response is oh so funny. Freedom is funny.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:
That is exactly what those shouting loudly about free speech are after, the ability to exercise hate speech, trolling and abusive behavior without consequence. The longer this goes on the more their power and influence increases, the more the community circles the drain and all but the die hard leave - just like these very forums.
Part of civility and building a community is to not demonize others - and especially those who uphold human rights and freedoms.
I am so amazed about what I have seen from 2020-2022 - a meming of such an important concept by many to turn something that is the back bone of the West and the USA specifically - human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of speech be turned into
"Mah freedumbs! mah rites! Mah freedumbs!'
Or even the accusation that those who promote such IDEALS of Western Democracy seek to abuse them and victimize others.
This is uncivil. THIS is toxic. THIS spells doom for any world, virtual or not.
To mock or meme Freedom means we are headed to doom.
How can people be civil in a virtual world, or forum, when civility is GONE in real life.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:
Ehhhh. Hop over to the Oculus Experiences site and read the reviews for Horizon Venues and Horizon Worlds. The same complaints over and over and over, typically. Kids are ruining this, everyone is so immature, I can't enjoy the show, children are screaming into their mics and trolling, etc. Apparently, the experiences adults are attempting to have are being interrupted by kids acting a whole fool (during events, concerts, etc.).
Staff doesn't seem to be doing much about it, or else maybe there wouldn't be so many negative reviews repeating the same complaints. I'm not sure what regular users could do in that instance, short of maybe blocking a large majority of the platform? How would they take responsibility exactly? I'm not sure how it works over there. Can they mute everyone disrupting a concert?
All I know is it sounds like a hot mess (and makes me very glad SL doesn't have these issues).
Moderation is a necessary evil - or else you're going to struggle getting people to stay interested in your product over the long-term (seriously, who wants to listen to kids screaming into mics all night?). Change that into adults trolling other adults (which also happens in plenty of online spaces) and it's not much more pleasant.
Sounds amazing. And if screaming kids I just block them. Done. Next.
4 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:I'm always a bit leery about the "just mute, ignore, and move on" approach, for a wide number of reasons. For one thing, the damage has often already been done by the time that becomes an option. And not everyone is psychologically or emotionally equipped to deal with what might be thrown at them before they know that this is a person who should be muted.
Sorry, don't buy it.
4 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:Yes, if someone is throwing racist or sexist or homophobic crap at you, you can always mute them -- after they've thrown the racist or sexist or homophobic crap. It can be argued that no one should have to put up with that, and it shouldn't be MY responsibility, as the target, to hide from them.
But it happens, and nothing you will ever do will change that - ensuring everyone is 'civil' all the time and a 'safe space' for everyone will come at great cost to the majority's freedoms and dignities.
We've seen it demonstrated in real life the last 2 years. It will be worse in a virtual world who aims to make this their foremost goal.
4 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:And, of course, muting someone doesn't stop them: it just means I can't hear them insulting me or throwing slurs at me.
It has the same effect. You're protected through your own volition, no need to get governance.
4 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:I could use the example of the person who was spamming this forum not so long ago with racist BS aimed, particularly, at one of our regular posters. Yeah, we could just "ignore" that person . . . until the next account is created, of course. And the next. And the next. Meanwhile, the forum is slowly buried under a tide of racist sewage.
Which is why there has to be a base level of civility demanded of everyone. And that's where moderation, and some form of "discipline" comes into play. It should be lightly applied and carefully handled, but . . .
An analogy here is of course the whole gun control thing. I find that those who think that the answer to violence is to carry your own gun are most usually those who are best armed. I'm not sure that's the kind of culture I want to move in.
Well the other culture you propose is not one I want to move in. Now what?
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:
I think these places have inner enclaves where people try to take control and exclusion happens, it's just that when the whole virtual world is bigger we don't see those smaller groups as easily.
Indeed. And it's best that way. They have very little influence and where they might have been big fish in a little pond, they get absorbed and irrelevant and have less effect. Best.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:
The AR is an element of community policing, and a really important one -- perhaps the most important one.
No. People taking responsibility for their own experience and reactions is the most important one, by using the tools they already have to manage their issues - and leaving platform staff out of it.
Yet many many times, I don't see people using those tools, and seem to enjoy running to authority figures to wield as weapons against others. I've watched people literally orgasm with glee when they were successful at 'getting one over' on another user for whatever reason. They could barely hold their innards in, drunk on dopamines that they were able to get someone else to fight their battles for them. A battle that's not even worth it, but manipulating others is addictive to them.
40 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:But if we're talking, again, about scaling here, there's going to need to be some sort of mechanism. LL can barely handle ARs in-world as it is. A metaverse platform with potentially hundreds of millions of residents online concurrently? It wouldn't stand a chance.
Yes, and that's a wonderful byproduct of a larger user mass. The tattle taling, the manipulation of staff, the cries of woe and alleged offense simply can't be handled personally anymore - and the people must resort to tools they already have. Like blocks and ignore. Yet to this day you will see users act helpless and victimized when the power is under their fingertip and takes 0.0001% second of their life to implement.
The best thing for any platform is to grow to many numbers so that they can't deal with every little complaint, and that is when a platform is at it's best. Go look to Bansar and other small platforms who never grew past a small number where early adopting groups become their own force, and become toxic to any new user that tries to join. Couldn't happen on VR Chat or RecRoom as they grew too fast.
40 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:A metaverse platform with potentially hundreds of millions of residents online concurrently? It wouldn't stand a chance.
Sounds absolutely amazing and a place I would like to be.
Other than the most extreme (and exceptional) circumstance does a governance even need to step in - the most 'civil' and fair way is to give people the tools to manage themselves - and leave staff alone.
-
2
-
-
Yet that is usually not the result as observed and experienced. Maybe for YOU, but such movements are actually all about EXCLUDING others as a rule - who don't conform to their vision.
-
1
-
2
-
-
This also seems to happen randomly, but mostly if an object in front is obscuring an object behind, and if you move fast enough (or notice) you will see the object(s) behind 'pop' or be drawn into existence again. If it's a perhaps 'slow' draw, then you see a white flash before the asset is loaded back in.
Seems like something that would happen as an optimization feature, but going a bit too hard on some system configs or graphics cards.
It is very distracting though, especially when it happens in your peripheral vision or moving about lol
-
This may or may not be related, or what you are experiencing:
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
1 second Orb timing, is it necessary
in General Discussion Forum
Posted · Edited by Codex Alpha
How would you propose to this case by case?
I did suggest that I could probably do such a thing, by simply filing an Abuse Report. It might waste LL's time dealing with it (as the argument is currently that it is legal to have 0 second orbs) and hence why posting it here for them to consider was done. I also don't want to file it as 'Abuse' either - because that's not entirely fair either.
It's also not easy to pinpoint where the snipe comes from, as it is so fast - that one is sent home far before we know who or what parcel initiated the action - so couldn't even avoid it the next time should I find my way back to where I was originally before the ejection and teleport.
There is literally no defense against such things, especially if I'm doing a combo of looking around for fun, and seeing what's on the map, and in a couple cases even descending down towards a rental parcel and suddenly getting TP'd home