[SL viewer suggestion for pan and zoom - discussion]

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 second Orb timing, is it necessary]

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 second Orb timing, is it necessary]

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 second Orb timing, is it necessary]

. sorry better to stay on topic if possible

[1 second Orb timing, is it necessary]

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

["It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility]

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.

["It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility]

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.

["It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility]

And.. look at them dogpile... they can't stop.

["It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility]

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.

 

["It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility]

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?

["It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility]

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".

["It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility]

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.

["It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility]

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.

["It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility]

. I keep forgetting dealing with manipulators and weirdos never works out. I'll just report instead.

["It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility]

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.

["It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility]

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Right on que.. 

.. and hilarious.

Yes, because the response is oh so funny. Freedom is funny.

["It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility]

 

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.

["It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility]

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?

 

 

 

 

["It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility]

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.

["It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility]

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.

 

 

["It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility]

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.

[Why All This World Flickering Havoc in Edit Mode?]

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

[Objects randomly disappearing and reappearing?]

This may or may not be related, or what you are experiencing:

 

["It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility]

2 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

No, because you are an enabler of the culture. It's like the time Philip banned several dozen denizens of Something Awful, which crossed over into 4chan and inworld griefing groups like "b" etc. There are those that maintain the land or maintain the open prims where griefing items are stored so that alts can easily get them when they re-spawn. They hold the cloak. They post selfies of themselves with griefers (even certain Lindens have done this historically) yet can remain technically free of the charge of griefing because they haven't acted or haven't been caught

All this "outrage on principle" like the refusal to accept random drug tests may all sound noble, but it enables a culture where the drug users can also get up their high dudgeon and undermine the system.

The Lindens remove swastikas as a hate symbol. They do take action on anti-gay attacks. So it's reasonable to expect that they can act on a "Z," but even if they won't, I can, and find it fully justified. 

It's not what I support or don't. SL is not real; it is virtual; it is a highly controlled and censored society which is also highly uneven in its management. So the discussion is about how you cope within that artificial set of rules. In RL, under the First Amendment, I wouldn't report a swastika despite aversion to it because it is "protected speech". If it appears on the tombstones of Jewish graves, then I would, because then it is not just vandalism but hate speech which in some communities and states can lead to civil or criminal action. The Buffalo shooter is not just arrested for murder, but hatred of minorities, and not just that, but white supremacist terror. That might not even have been possible (all three of those types of charges) even 10 or 15 years ago, but the media and society at large has increasingly come to accept this as necessary.

Regardless of the advertising, SL is a world where capture roleplay is tolerated and many kinds of violent and broadly offensive activity that LL will not act on, especially if in adult reasons, despite championing an event like "Billion Rising" in the "Destinations" or a blog post. 

So ultimately this guy's post about gun control, which people especially on the right will pick apart, is a reasonable analogy because those with the culture of objection may not themselves be miscreants but they create the climate of impunity and don't want to take responsibility for it. The Wired journo stumping to go after Japanese state capitalist toy companies while willing to overlook Ken Lerer's bankrolling of Moot and flippant Washpo articles on the edginess of 4chan is exactly part of the problem. He doesn't want to ban 4chan because: 1st Amendment, although the platform providers could unilaterally make that decision. He wants to be able to target only the extreme right or foreigners (Russia, Japan, whatever) but not look at leftists and liberals at home who also make up that culture of enablement and impunity. And this climate is not one to be legislated. It is one that changes with social movements like #MeToo. If every company that suffered a DDoS complained to Ken Lerer that his support of a group that not only commits them, but their founder who is supposedly becoming more artistic and less of a griefer won't denounce them, then they can boycott him and his works and socially ostracize him until he grasps that if you want free speech for all, then you have to combat DDoS for all, and not accept violence/force as a method, by looking the other way when people you don't like get DDoS'd, instead of universally condemning the tactic. 

I can appreciate your passion on the subject - but really it isn't supposed to be that hard. Frankly all of this is quite tedious and I'm not interested in promoting victim culture and 'helplessness' to the point that governance of any type, whether in a virtual world or real - will happily step in and crush everyone in order to guarantee a safe space for all. A safe, secure and ultimately super boring and mediocre and soul-crushing space.

Good luck. I hope everyone bans everyone else they think should get banned until there is no one left.

"We can't manage the ban lists. We can't keep up with it. If we restricted everyone that everyone would like to have restricted, we'd have no one left" - Phillip Rosedale regarding social spaces in HiFi, where users constantly whining about others to the help desk, wasting their time, spreading drama and toxicity and fingerpointing and villainization of others - until ultimately it contributed (in part) to it's social area shutdown, and ultimate failure.

Rinse and repeat on Bansar (in part), with the same attitude.

Hey lets do it in Second Life too! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Perhaps this kind of thing can't be done anymore. It's over. Metaverse isn't going to happen, because it can't.

The Rise of Victimhood Culture It's funny how one can notice a change in society, how much of a difference it makes in one's own reality and existence, and not really knowing what to call it, then come up with a relevant term for it, then find someone wrote a pertinent book on it.

it really encapsulates what happens online and in real-world situations from home to school to workplace. In the end it just leads to the rise of the Nanny State - otherwise known as the Totalitarian State.

"We're going to force you to be polite!"

["It's really, really hard to build a world" - Philip on Civility]

6 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Wow!

Sorry, but if someone put a sign up at my SL neighbor's house saying "Kill all XXXX",  "DIE YOU XXXX" where XXXX is a group of RL people, then I would definitely feel OK in AR'ing them.  If the sign happens to be a Nazi swastika (vs. the original Hindu swastika symbol), then I'd be sorely tempted also. Because the Nazi swastika represents the same thing.

Ah-ah-ah... that is not what I was proposing. I CLEARLY stated if it goes outside the TOS defined by Second Life and or even RL-laws of 'calling for violence against others', then it is already handled by the TOS or in RL, the law.

Again, you can't be championing a movement to censor one person's expression, then bolstering another - which either/or is going to offend someone, so as a society we have allowed the maximum expression possible - making it legal to express your ideas short of calling for violence against the other.

Yet online, when one group goes after another individual, and calls for them to be 'fired' from their job, or their 'career ended'..  this should be considered a 'call to violence against others' because it is an attack on their livelihood and how they feed themselves and their family and therefore is a direct and violent attack on their very lives.

Why is it an attack on their very lives? Because the clear and END intention is to separate them from their means of living and creating an income - and people shouldn't play stupid like they don't know what this literally means - they die. Last time I checked if you don't have a job, you don't have money, you're first homeless, then you die.

People play at this like it's no big deal - but it is, and in extreme cases people will act out in justified self-defence against such action - and as a country that can have serious ramifications and lead to serious conflict.

Censoring, cancelling and inevitably destroying someone else just over what they said or a word they used is going too far, but some people will only learn civility the hard way - with uncivil like action.