Codex Alpha

I'm fine if it is directly related to Second Life and the aspects of building, scripting, selling, creating, building worlds, etc. I'm not educated yet on what 'in-depth' community pages means quite yet. Gotta link to it specifically so I can verse up on it? I'm fine with topics that go a bit off, but in forums or platforms where they get too diverse with their topics or unrelated, dilutes it and I just leave or stop participating. I feel this is already served by General or Lifestyles. If a platform goes too far off topic, or starts adding a Cooking forum, etc way off the intent of the original reason to be there, I tend to stop using it. I am NOT interested in Second Life expanding into some political or social justice movement platform.

I simply don't believe that text chat is limited as much as some people would claim. To think so would negate the thousands of writers throughout history that affected people, inspired them, educated them, enlightened them and all sorts of positive things - all without voice. When it comes to sensitive subjects, for me it is much safer to use the written word, because at least you can review and edit and clarify one's thinking and consider the effects much better than if you were to present it live in voice - until you get a lot of practice with public speaking. I've had my moments on microphone - and really it doesn't matter depending on your audience whether you write it or not - they're ALWAYS going to take issue with what you say, because of course people don't always agree. I am also aware how adept people have become in tuning out people's voices in real life - where people might be actively ignoring, or only paying attention passively, or half-listening and half-thinking about something else - or even just waiting for their chance to speak ( and what you are saying is just getting in the way of having their turn) - so in many cases (mainly online) sometimes text is better. For example if a chat room is very busy (many speakers on microphone/cam) I may just go to text even if I'm on the cam myself, so that I can get my thoughts out before I forget them (and not be accused of interrupting others). In other cases, I want to hear people on mic, if it's a virtual world like Sansar, SL, VR Chat or other - the interface isn't the best for text, or people don't usually look at it. Also, for those of us who have had stalkers ourselves, people using mics negates the ability for people to befriend you without revealing who they are. No one has to reveal their indentity or dox themselves using a mic. I've had plenty of 'friends' online that I've never known them anything other than their nicknames and voice on mic and having a good time. In all my posts I use well known writing techniques to emphasis words, to put emphasis on others, to use "quotations that are not my thoughts", to use VOICE INFLECTION(SHOUT) and sometimes emotes. If text wasn't as great as video and microphone, then millions of blogs, books and magazines would not exist and video would be king. Seriously stop with the stories. What do you do and where do you go that you constantly witness such things? Come on. Yes, and text can be a prison now as on Discord, unlike video and chat (unless recorded) can be a LIVE and UNRECORDED conversation, Discord and any other text based chat system today never goes away and people can and will use everything that you say against you, with no context. This is where text fails, because people can pick and choose and cherry pick phrases from people they don't like and misrepresent them and people miss the entire context of the conversation.

Not nice. I don't deserve that label, nor the accusation following it. Coffee wants a special forum, some of us don't want any groups to get special treatment (and we actually explain WHY) . And that's it. The rest is uncivil.

Yes Moondira missed the point, didnt pay attention to context, and cherry picked a few words out to react to, instead of addressing the entire point made.

Coffee, you have a habit of framing many things as hostile when they are not, or make claims that simply do not happen and are NOT happening, OR (if I give you the benefit of the doubt or possibility) that you are using words that you do not fully understand, and this is what others are having issue with. In this case, as 'brigading' is defined as I and others know it, you are making an unfair and incorrect statement. What is Brigading? “Brigading” is a term that originated on Reddit for a coordinated attack by a group of users of an antagonistic subreddit (forum dedicated to a particular topic). The brigade would privately agree to “downvote” comments, either on a random or targeted basis, to deprioritise them in users’ feeds and effectively censor them. The meaning of the term expanded to cover all coordinated voting behaviour to make something or someone seem more or less popular than they actually are, and now it means all coordinated abusive engagement behaviour online. This engagement can come in the form of retweets, comments, quote retweets, email campaigns and more. As is many, many other accusations and claims made by individuals on multiple Virtual World platforms in the last few years, many of them are either used out of turn, misunderstood, misrepresented, exaggerated, and even completely fabricated to support a narrative that an individual (or group) is the target of some organized oppression - which for SL and others is MOSTLY FALSE. I personally don't have an issue of you being happy in SL and getting the support you need to be happy in SL, but I do have a problem with how it goes down - anyone who disagrees keeps getting painted in a negative (and inaccurate) light. It needs to stop. Just like calling other people names here or using derogatory terms against others is against the TOS and against civil discussion - so should be the framing of other individuals or groups to be 'hostile, aggressive, trolls, brigadiers' (and in recent RL events) 'terrorists, government overthrowers, grandma-killers, uncaring, evil, selfish, yahoos,', etc. It may not qualify as hate speech, but it certainly is an uncivil, unfair and nasty way to describe others. I would like to see less of this here and MORE addressing of the points people made. PS. I very, very much just want to stick to the points you make, and never address you personally, but these statements are being typed by you, so I am addressing them as statements and not about YOU. Yes, I've had this discussion already and I am fully aware of all the factors, nor did i specify LGBTQ+ or any specific group, but rather an attitude. Of course nothing is 100% responsible, and that's why i stated IMO (important IMO) when I said it. I also don't need to get into any further discussion about the matter - as it will always be denied as a factor. I also recognized that people will dismiss that opinion, as they have before, so no biggie. Experiences may vary, I say. AND... back to the accusations and assuming the worst of people. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Haha I thought something got messed up somewhere. just working on stuff multiple windows thanks for heads up

Well my participation in this thread is more for Linden Lab to consider, that's why I'm putting my opinion in. Frankly SL did very well as a non-political, non-social-issues-platform other than being a welcoming and open platform to ALL, and I want it to stay that way. I know no one likes to mention Sansar here - but Sansar was a CLEAR example, (and HIFI in some respects) where putting social issues at the FOREFRONT of a platform severely limited its growth and arguably destroyed it, as most issues on those platforms between users was over social ones and dragging the developer and their staff (either willingly or not) - and IMO (important IMO) - that it destroyed both platforms. Now this is coming more into SL than ever before - and the result will probably be the same. People will leave and not come back. So yes, how we talk about this and discuss how we want SL and it's forums to become is important to some of us - on both sides. Others here may dismiss my experience but what can I do. I LOVED HIFI and watched it destroyed by this sort of thing. I LOVED Sansar even MORE and watched it destroyed by this sort of thing. Now it's happening in Second Life, getting louder and louder each week. I know how this ends. The steps to ruin: Claim being a victim of mass and widespread harassment and ill-treatment. Call for special protection, extra-attention, safe-spaces for the oppressed. Silence all countering opinion, villainize them because they must 'not be for safe spaces'. People are afraid to be themselves. People leave.

The context of my response would be similar to if I was dating a woman who wore too much makeup, fake 3 inch nails, extensions, plastic eyelashes, 1" of makeup and botox lips. It simply isn't relatable anymore, as that person has created a barrier between them and me, and I'm dealing with the clown and not the real person underneath. This was not meant in the context that people aren't free to dress up or present themselves as they see fit - I was speaking for MYSELF and how I may react or engage certain people (not all) and WHY and offering the op of the post I was responding to another view to consider - instead of always defaulting to every encounter they post about as being some hostile encounter. People need to lighten up around here - I believe their attitudes are more based on what is going on in their own heads, rather than what the reality is. Use some temperance and diligence when dealing with other people. Sorry but Second Life is not that hostile - well it can be if everything is going to be framed as a microaggression, troll, grief, harassment or a hostile act. I gave other reasons why someone might want you to speak on your mic. They may be more comfortable speaking with people on mic, as they like that way of communicating - and if they themselves have been victims to trolls and stalkers on alts and sock puppets, it would make sense that they may be more sensitive of it. It's also well known and documented by many of us long-term gamers that female avatars get more attention in games, and more perks and privileges, and some MEN have exploited this fact and gained $$, status and other. Harmless of course, but there is always another way to look at any situation - from the other person's perspective. Most posts on SL forums are always tales of woe - and if anyone dares to offer another perspective - they are automatically labeled 'dismissive', 'disrespectful', 'uncaring' or any other of many. Where is the patience in people? Where is this love that is so popularly professed? Where's this 'we are fam' attitude, or does that only apply to those who only share one's opinion? It's surprising that there are those who still cling to the illusion that they are fooling anyone with a voice that didn't naturally come to them and doesn't share traits with naturally occurring and widely recognized vocal traits. In a way, the 'voice' used also qualifies as an act, and creates a barrier between them and me, because I just want Jeff to be real and drop all the put on voices and such. Jeff can do what he wants, and I uphold his right to dress, act and speak as he wants - I'm just relaying how I cannot relate to some because of it. Yes voices are used as identifiers to a group or other, and many put them on. Then it is not needed, as many have already pointed out, that is already granted to any topics you would like to present in General or Lifestyles. What you are really looking for is a platform to express your views, that ARE based in creating social change in the world, and on Second Life specifically - and why you want to operate it HERE and not on your own web hosting, and you want to be free of anyone criticizing or offering opinions and viewpoints to consider. You say you don't want a culture war, but what you are asking for is part of a culture war. You want to change minds for a social agenda, and you want to do it on Second Life's dime, on their servers, and to their audience. You want to be able to say "this happened to me" without anyone being able to offer another possible perspective, to offer advice because you want the section to be "without the room to debate". No it's not. I've moderated and admin'd in many different situations online, both gaming, chat rooms and online forums. I didn't step in until it came to near-blows, or breaking of the Term of Service, or inciting a flame war purposefully. With ignore, mute and block buttons available on the platform, one can allow maximum freedom for people to converse with each other, without much time having to be invested in babysitting all it's members and gamers - and only step in in extreme cases. This whole narrative that SL is some toxic, troll-ridden, hater-filled platform is a straight up lie, but the victim mentality needs to shore that up constantly - to maintain the claim that they are being constantly oppressed - so that they have the full force of whatever authority figure they can trick into doing so - being their personal hammer against others. How about we not divide, and unite instead? EQUALITY is about equal treatment, equal consideration, and no SPECIAL treatment. Probably to LGBTQ+ resources, institutions and platforms that are specifically, and better equipped to help them with their concerns. SL is already very very free and open to allowing it's members to do as they wish in world, with reasonable limits. Many SL and Sansar, VR Chat users have created their own communities, inworld and without, with thousands of Discord channels where they can discuss these issues all day, and free from question, counter opinion, debate , trolling and griefing. They found it best to host it themselves, so why cant you? Is this the role of Second Life or other virtual platforms though? Or is the platform already available and with numerous tools to unite people of similar interests so that they can grow and improve together? Or is this something better taken to therapy instead of airing it on the internet for all to see? Right, but this is what would be called a culture war, because this kind of activity is NOT happening in Second Life, would clearly be against SL's Terms of Service, and would be handled as such. Discussing real world issues, making real world examples like that - would qualify as NOT related to people's experiences in Second Life, and the original request smacks more of wanting a platform to 'change the world' rather than REAL issues that might destroy SL if not addressed.

From Sansar days, Full Spectrum (Medhue)'s avatar was the most acceptable to me so I got it in multiple editions and their female body ( mainly for product shots). There were the most balanced given the platform and because they were close to the standard sized avatar were a pleasure to make clothing for, etc and the proportions weren't too bad. Could have used a slightly more raised chest, but in clothes or outfits didn't matter they looked good. On the right is my SL avatar i've had since the very beginning, Actually not a bad ratio back then, but very low poly of course and jerky looking. Hated the weird faces of them all back then, so went with a cyber look. Mask was also to cover weird face. Dude standing in the casual suit looks like a normal average fit guy standing on the street and that's what I'm looking for, and their faces aren't so pretty and metrosexual or 'dreamy sex' like. In other words more of a base canvas to start with and faces that aren't too weird or too detailed. The FullSpectrum's were balanced that way. had decent detail but didn't go over the top. The Marvelous Designer ability to mold around the avatar was good too. My SL avatar had to try many many coats - since most of them were mesh they always looked bulky and like a winter coat, finally found pants and jacket that fit and didn't bulk my avatar up too much.

Simple. Fit, body ratio in proper proportion, life scale to SL ratio proper scale (not 8 feet superheros). What Ayashe has posted before me as an example the middle one is close, but all 3 look like aliens, the body proportions are all off... I haven't found a male avatar I've liked so far, so I'm still in the old default avatar and couldn't care less until something that actually looks like an average and fit male avatar comes along.

Absolutely nothing wrong at all.

CONTEXT: Virtual Worlds in General Some of us like to know who we're dealing with. Other than a roleplaying scenario it can be quite strange to try to deal with someone based on their avatar only, they never talk for some reason, and so put up a barrier in the relationship based on the clown suit. Although it's not required to know someone's personal details in order to be friends with people - sometimes it gets exhausting dealing with the 'costume' people put up. It functions very much as a strawman or clown-makeup - and people think we're going to be able to take them seriously when they're not participating fully in the encounter. After awhile, if it happens a lot - one may not even want to engage with those who use only text chat - as we really don't know who we're speaking with, or if it is an alt of someone else (happens), or a stalker (happens) or any other reason the mind may come up with. I understand that many don't use the microphone for many reasons, and in general I can accept it - but at some point I fatigue having to deal with so many deeply-layered 'anonymous' characters that there is no way I would bother engaging with them - as it is not a real person I'm dealing with. I feel the same way with anyone who might wear their politic, social, or other issue on their sleeve or as the whole of their presentation - because I feel there is a barrier put up, and I cannot relate properly to that real person - I'm just engaging with the 'act', the 'front', the strawman - and that gets old. "Tell me when Jake comes back, cuz I'm tired of talking to the clown makeup" "Tell me when Jane comes back, cuz I'm done talking to the beer" It may have not been an attack at all , but a legitimate question. Just like you probably choose who to engage with and not according to your own standards - how about affording that courtesy to others - assume good intention instead of not, and stop framing people as hostile, aggressive or rude because you feel a certain way. I could ask the same question, with the same concern, and I would be framed as 'rude', 'hostile', or 'jerk' just for asking. That's BS. Such a simple and random engagement has got you rattled, and it doesn't have to. So it wasn't a pleasant experience, but there's no harm in communicating to another the terms of the relationship - and each party can take it or leave it.

What constitutes a 'musician' in the most basic form is "A person who composes, conducts, or performs music." This may come in many forms, many levels of talent, and in many creative ways. Just like we can still have fun at the random coffee shop listening to people of different talents (from novice to recording artist level), or drink some beer and listen to Bob belt out "Welcome To The Jungle" when he probably shouldn't - is all part of the fun and instead of worrying whether it is 'musicianship' or not, is to give it the respect it should in Second Life terms as 'entertainment'. There is something to be said for letting people just perform at whatever level, as it can go a long way to boost their confidence, open up more, and will most likely improve (if that's their goal). I started off as a vocalist in the bathroom, was overheard by a roommate, and said "You need to go to Karaoke", then some Karaoke as I improved confidence until someone got pissed off at me and said "You don't belong here! Karaoke is for people to have fun!" which was a signal to move up to going to jam sessions in bars, then eventually to a full band and gigs. All along the way, there was always someone saying "What's he doing here, what's he doing" as there is always someone either with good intentions or otherwise thinking you could do better or are 'not good enough' etc. Since I have experienced that attitude myself, I have grown into a person who has advocated creativity for everyone at all levels, and when running jam sessions to give everyone a chance, and understand they could be the next up-and-comer. It's also fun to get a variety of talents on voice or instruments anyway, rather than the same guitar virtuoso who wants to hog the stage It doesn't mean I want to hear everyone in SL that performs, but I support them in doing so, as it makes Second Life all that more fun - people can take or leave their performance, but at least it's there if one wants to listen. I know fellow 'musicians' that would claim that cover bands are not musicians either - they scoff at those who do covers. They may also say "They're not real musicians, they're just playing someone else's music. Dude is just role-playing Eddie Van Halen" What would you say to that if you were subjected to the same judgement that you might be to others? Because you could be... I've also known many 'gear heads' we call them - who have spent thousands and thousands of dollars on studio equipment - worked with some of them personally, yet they can't even write a song if it saved their life. These same types have even judged me for NOT having expensive guitars, equipment - and their judgement might be based on some envy that even without official music training (self-taught), and even without expensive music equipment ($800 max guitar) and even without expensive studio equipment (DAW + audio Interface + speakers), or lacking equipment they believe a vocalist should have (PA). It must aggravate them to no end that just I and an acoustic guitar can write, record and perform songs all by my lonesome - and with relatively little investment. Even as a vocalist for a few original music bands (I've also jumped into cover bands as well), there is always a more experienced musician/band or more successful musician/band that would be judging us and saying the same thing as you are. "What are they doing, why are they here", and it's just music snobbery really in the end. As I was also on a journey to my own music goals, I was fortunate to be able to play with, jam with and work with many different types of musicians, even some who were already recording artists, or also on their way (and others who went to the top) because in large part our community was very welcoming of all would-be artists of varying levels and much fun was had as a result. One does not have to be a musician to be a critic of music. That is our audience, and to please them is what is best to do. It is always best to remain humble and open to criticism (which is based on a solid and true confidence in one's talents and shortcomings) and learn from what they say. I used to hate when people might mention "you sound like so-and-so vocalist, so-and-so-band" which you can can take the wrong way when you're trying to forge an original sound for yourself or your band - but then you find out that's the only way they can communicate to you, and it's actually a compliment. A less-stable person might take it as a harsh criticism, but if you're well-rounded you can step back and see if the criticism has merit or not. Believe me. Don't get angry at feedback, criticism or comments - it's better than apathy, and any feedback is better than NO feedback. Some people talk, other people don't. One person may not like such a thing and wish "Just get on with it and play something else!" and others won't have a problem with it. If the attendees are having fun engaging with the performer, and the chit chat and back and forth is working, why not let it be? There are many times in coffee shops where you may have an "In The Round" type of performance from recording artists or amateur local musicians and the format is to play a song, chit-chat with the audience, relay personal stories or info about the song, then play the next - and many people enjoy that. That may not be your cup of tea, and that's fine. You can always move on. I don't like everything I hear either - but I'm glad they're there, performing in one way or another, and providing me and Second Lifers entertainment should we be seeking it. I won't be crapping on their creative efforts that's for sure. They don't need to be. One day they might be, as many of us have - and we got our start (and sometimes continue to) perform in coffee shops and other. What's important is that they're making noise and doing what they love - and providing entertainment and content for you and the rest of us. Hey, work the audience. You don't have to change your act too much, but would it hurt to give the audience what they want? I'm very much the performing type to come out on stage, rock the set, and walk off... but even I learned sometimes giving a nod to the audience, thanking them for being there, asking them if they're having fun, and engaging them MORE than I normally would has paid off in the past. Of course, I have my boundaries - I'm not going to be the Master of Ceremonies as some vocalists in bands are, selling drinks and telling jokes - but hey your level of comfort is fine. But engage, don't get mad at your audience. They're there to be entertained, and you are there to entertain (and have your own fun in the process) Yes, follow your own declared motto: Give the audience a good time and show. Be humble in what you're doing and respectful of others not as talented as you, as YOU may be subjected to the same judgement as well in some music circles. Accept feedback from your audience, and make changes to make them happy - or they won't come back and you'll be playing Van Halen covers to an empty room. Rock on bro.

Everyone already has. It's the core of our society and how it manages to keep going along. My rights end where your rights begin is a phrase that couldn't be any simpler to live by. When one party is IMPOSING upon another in some way or another - that's usually a sign that one side is in the wrong, and is trampling the other person's rights. Empathy can't be enforced or required at the end of a gun of the State, or the banhammer of a platform governance. I would rather uphold 'free speech' for anyone than be telling people what they can or cannot say. There are already laws in place that limit speech to anything short of calling for violence or hurtful action against someone else. The kind of 'free speech' I'm talking about is being able to freely express your opinion, to risk offending other people and to be offended in turn as people speak with us - and at the end of the day even though something said may have stung in the moment - on reflection and self-assessment - an opportunity to improve oneself, hone one's argument, or even to change our opinion on something. Nothing good comes out of limiting others, or trying to create a 'safe space' for anyone. It's impossible. Well it's possible, but as I've said before it means NO ONE can be themselves, governance and discipline is heavy handed - and in the end no one dares say a word against the status quo, and it can have quite a chilling effect, and in the case of SL and other virtual worlds - can play a big part in destroying them. My stance is clear. There is no need for a special forum, special treatment, special consideration, special moderation, or anything that is special for a group. The safe space is already here and moderated on the main Second Life forums. This is already available on the Second Life forums. Yet in practice, that is what will happen, and there's no real need for it for anyone here to express themselves. The OP has no problem posting and contributing to the forums on any number of topics - and I value her experience and skill and have learned from her posts in the past - I'm sure she and others will do fine. How will making all your discussion on a publicly accessed forum do that, and is not the point or goal or service that Second Life provides? If anything, people can create groups, meetups, events, support sessions, etc INWORLD. That's the point of Second Life. Not to do it all in public. Unless that is what is the goal here... To have a public platform supported on Second Life's dime that deals with Real Life issues unrelated to Second Life and it's service as a virtual platform. Other than forums that exist that directly support activities, learning and sharing related to Second Life, wouldn't hurt to do so! Seems pretty balanced and effective to me so far! "Discord ruined Sansar, as no one talks inworld anymore" - a jaded Sansar user

I hear this a lot, but not one person is defining what that is, how they would do it, or the actual solution in practice. What could we DO exactly to get to this goal? It's easy to make the forums welcoming by being patient, forgiving, and friendly to everyone. It's not something someone or something else does to ENFORCE its friendly, it starts with YOU and ME. I got the ME covered.

I wonder how one can balance the scales by on one hand wanting equality, to be treated as equal and 'normal', yet having a countering need to be afforded special treatment, enhanced powers in the form of moderation, segregation or protection. You are already equal and 'normal' here in the Second Life forums, where everyone has the opportunity to speak their opinion, and no one is treated any better than anyone else, for any reason. To assume you are the only group needing a 'safe space' is a bit self-centered, as there are many, and the forums are already a 'safe space' as they are already appropriately moderated as needed. Perhaps if you feel the SL forum moderators are 'not up to the task', perhaps one could consider another possibility is that they are moderating as intended - meaning what you might think is an offense or needing moderation simply doesn't.

Labeling and accusing others of ill intent. This is a small example of those who want to be treated with respect and care, yet do not act that way themselves; constantly engaging in labeling and name-calling, misrepresentation of others views, putting words in their mouth, and continuing with some suspicious witch hunt that bad people are everywhere, and that one is continuously unsafe and a victim. They're just questions to be answered, with the point being is there really a need for ANY sub forum specialty on Second Life forums that is not directly related to Second Life in general? Just calling it a logical fallacy so that the questions can be hand-waved away is again assuming ill-intent, instead of assuming someone has good intent in their posts. Is it true hostility and is anyone getting hurt, or is it just the perception or appearance of hostility. When today's attitude with many is that EVERYTHING is a microagression, EVERYTHING is hostile, EVERYTHING is an attack - there is little one can do it allay such fears. Nothing. Once one is painted with such a brush, no matter what side you're on, it's not just LGBTQ+ voices silenced - it's everyone with a countering opinion or worldview to the majority on the platform. Second Life already provides a fair and wide place to discuss ideas, and you don't need them to provide this to you - once again, you can do this yourself.

See, one can do this until the cows come home. I've been present to this type of attitude, witnessed it first hand both in thought and action - and watched to how it progressed to a point that others were getting TRULY hurt - whether at the least ostracizing and mistreatment from the controlling majority or at the worst getting banned from a platform. And every single time, every single time the attitude was always that everyone else was being hostile, harassing, belligerent, rude and the accusation of simply got repeated over and over and over again - and without any proof and in many cases no reasoning to feel that way. You're not going to win anyone over to your cause when you keep labeling those who just hold a different opinion or worldview from your hostile, or that they are a danger to you. Speaking your opinion is fine, and fighting for your worldview is fine too. It's when it starts to go beyond: calling for the ostracizing, boycotting or just telling people "you don't need to talk to them" then yes, this topic needs to be locked because it has become pointless. Note: I don't hold any grudges or ill-will against anyone here I disagree with, and I don't have a problem with them in an way - until of course they come with pitchforks to my front door... Again, you are thinking the worst of another Second Life member, and framing them as a hostile or negative force - when there is no reason to believe so. You cannot win people to your side by villainizing those who don't agree with you.

Quote me or it was never said.

Don't worry about such things, as that is not on you. If you have a decent command of the English language - which you do - you can communicate quite clearly in text, and should not have to apologize or take responsibility for someone else's interpretation or reaction to it. You may find it has nothing to do on your end, or how you communicated, but on the others ability to process what you communicated due to their own level of vocabulary and comprehension. I've been in chat rooms on the internet for a long time, and many people 'misunderstand' or argue in many different ways, and many times it boiled down to them not understanding (or bothering to look up a definition/context/usage of) a word before reacting. I've also found in life and in live chats that people have become very adept at 'tuning out' other people, but the text goes in no matter what they're doing, and sometimes becomes a better and more effective tool to communicate ideas because they can't just simply plug their ears and go 'lalala!'. To think otherwise would diminish the written word of countless authors and writers and books that relied on text alone - it is simply not a reasonable way to dismiss someone else's words or characterize them in any way just because they typed it and didn't speak it. Would it be fair to assume Coffee that you're more looking for a Second Life sponsored and moderation enforced platform for you and the others in the group you promote to have a platform to voice and discuss your ideas for all to see? And similarly, would it be appropriate to have a Republican forum here? or Democrat? or Hot Rod Owners? Where would it begin and end and be reasonable? Why can't SL be limited to SL topics and groups (with a bit of natural leeway of course in General Discussion)? What is not working for you so far? And why is it you can't do this on your own?

Diedre Bloodrose is bolded below; One of the many problems faced by LGBTQ people is that so many people who aren't LGBTQ have strong opinions about what is and is not homophobic, transphobic, or biphobic. Yes, one tends to have strong reactions to being labeled or defined a certain way, or even being told that having an opinion that way is wrong – and they want the chance to have a discussion about it. Opinions that have no basis in the lived experience of LGBTQ people. Yes, because one’s opinion is formed from a lifetime of one’s own lived experience, and their opinion may have already understood, recognized and considered alternate worldviews – yet are now speaking their opinion on the sum of all that. To say that one cannot have or voice an opinion because one has not lived the life of another person in its entirety is unfair, and can be taken as just another way to silence one’s counterview on any subject. “I’m not giving advice, I’m just giving an opinion”. Learn from or discard someone else’s opinion if you like, that’s your choice. One thing that I would hope for from LGBTQ forums is that people who aren't LGBTQ would hold their tongue about what is and is not oppressive behavior. An unfair and impossible task, unless of course you want to run your own forum on your own hosting, and pay for it yourself, then you could implement anything you wish upon others. To ask for not only a forum on Second Life, - what you are really asking for is a platform -, but to have a company use resources to police others – is not reasonable. When one is told that one’s behaviour is oppressive, or one person claims that they have been oppressed by another, or one is even called an ‘oppressor’ – and assuming they are a normal, even-keeled person – they most certainly want to discuss it. It’s not fair or reasonable for anyone to simply state ‘this is oppressive behaviour’ and have it be so. This is why we have institutions existing to investigate claims, and to see if any crime has been committed – whilst maintaining the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ principle. One is not an oppressor just because someone said so. Absent lived experience, it can be very difficult to see how individual behavior links up with various kinds of structural oppression (something SL is not remotely free of). What is ‘structural oppression’ as applied to Second Life, and how is Second Life ‘structured’ in a way that prevents members of a certain group from equitable treatment as a whole? How is Second Life ‘structured’ to keep you down, limit your fun, or enjoyment of the platform? Another thing I would hope for is to be able to mention a problematic interaction in passing without having people who aren't LGBTQ jump in and demand the details of the interaction so they can argue it wasn't what I thought it was. Discussing a topic is how people learn other points of view, and it allows you the chance to convince them of your position. Or be told that I am too sensitive. I would like to be able to use phrases like "cis het" without somebody raging that it's perjorative*. Or any of a dozen other exhausting things. Perhaps it is best to stop applying labels and phrases to other people. Usually when people start doing that to each other, it doesn’t make it conducive to healthy discussion or coming to an understanding. And frankly, some people may actually be too sensitive, and they need for someone else to tell you so. Being oversensitive to others can make life hard - it's good to get feedback from others about it. Other than gaslighting types, most people mean well and want people to have a bit of fortitude and base in their character that doesn't just get blown around in the wind. It's not, "Keep Out, Queers Only." It's just "Here is a space where we'll assume people are LGBTQ and that LGBTQ people speak authoritatively about their lives and experience." Here's a space where our sensibilities are assumed. I have a several friends who aren't LGBTQ who thrive in spaces like that. As I have mentioned in other posts, you have the ultimate power to have a ‘safe space’ in your own hands and ability. Simply start a forum where you will host and moderate it yourself. It seems to be the best way to have such a community, and to have ultimate control over what happens there. Second Life does not owe any of us a moderated, protected platform for us to congregate and discuss ideas. Having a specific LGBTQ forum based on people’s identity and sexuality or political view or whatever else is starting to go outside of what Second Life was intended for: a virtual world for all to come create, share, build worlds and socialize with people around the world. An escape from the pressures of the real world, not just another battleground for it. Personally, I would like Second Life to focus on what Second Life is. No one wins when a corporate for profit venture turns into some social war platform. When LGBTQ people say that they find cis het people exhausting, it doesn't mean they don't love the cis het people in their lives. It means that it is exhausting to deal with all of the ways they don't see how the world is arranged to suit them over us. When my Black friends tell me they find white people exhausting, I don't take it personally. I just try to give them the space they need. One could consider simply not using phrases to describe others, as it just puts that person into a box, then treats them in accordance with that box and predefined trait. Keeping people out isn't a goal. Yet keeping out people is exactly what happens, and is not just exclusive to the topic you're interested in. It happens in all groups. The majority always calls for those who do not hold the same opinion to be removed. This just creates bubbles of interest everywhere, and is good for no one in the end. It's not about excluding anyone. It's not about dividing the world into smaller pieces based on sexual orientation and gender/sexual identity. It's about a place that centers people who aren't normally centered and often have to decide if it's worth their energy to point out where they've been casually excluded. That centering tends to reduce a lot of the need for more aggressive moderation. Is it your goal in truth to have a protected platform at the expense of Second Life, which is a virtual world to be enjoyed by all, regardless of their worldview or any other personal trait? Second Life is already ‘inclusive’ the way the forums are right now. Everyone can post, everyone can reply, and everyone can enjoy equal expression of opinion, and equal moderation. What more do you want, exactly?

Frankly I miss the days when I would engage or not engage with people in Second Life based on their character, what they were building, what they shared, and how we came together with similar interests. All of this social justice and wearing one's anything on one's sleeve destroys all that and puts things inbetween me and the other person that hadn't been an issue in the past, and in all reality and truth is completely unrelated to Second Life in any way. Second Life is a virtual world where you can come and play, and join communities you want to be part of, and just enjoy yourself. Now all it is is some cultural war, political division and 'saving the world' all the while trying to convince the Lindens that evil trolls, griefers and harassers are rampant in SL and that they need to be rescued. I watched this go to 100% on Sansar, and suddenly one day I'm just creating and sharing and discussing - the next I'm some target of some elimination campaign because apparently I said something to so-and-so (still don't know what years later) and that's all it took to villainize and call to put my head on a spike. All for the crime of speaking my opinion no doubt - and in no way wanting to hurt, limit, destroy or limit anyone's experience. I find all of this hypocritical and disturbing, and I've seen the damage that this sort of thing can do to a community. As we can see it divides everyone right down the middle, and IMO Second Life is not the place to be waging a 'save the world' campaign. FFS, all I want to do is see what you guys are building and creating so I can come and visit and admire and learn from and share my own - all this stuff just destroys the SL experience for me and many others (who I speak for but are long gone from their own similar issues with the platform(s) ). If I were to believe some people on these forums, SL is crawling with armies of harassing, extremely hostile individuals and that they need to be stamped out. Sorry, haven't seen it, but probably because I have pretty much removed myself from engaging with people I don't know anymore - as you never know what's going to trigger them in a conversation nowadays. The result will be a chilling effect and will grow as it had and did on the other platform, and people were scared of saying the wrong thing, or the over-babysitting done by staff, and the constant social justice agendas being put upon them - with threats of ostracizing at the least, with threats of banning from their hard work in personal worlds and their contributions to the marketplace. All of that is not fun and it needs to stop. Whether SL gives you a forum or not I could care less, but I'm not sure why there appears to be some growing sentiment that there is some war to be had on Second Life against some enemy, and that one needs a 'safe space' to repeat this attitude - somewhere to join together and be some 'force of good' in Second Life. It's all very exhausting and frustrating to read. I hope the Lindens just stay out of it altogether, and moderate as they always have, regardless of the topic. If you need such a safe space, many communities use Discord or other internet forum software where they can moderate their own rooms, limit, silence and ban anyone they like - and with no dependence on Lindens to discipline others on their behalf. Just thought I'd put my two cents in, but there is no way I'm getting suckered again into this silly war. "If we restricted everyone who everyone wanted to restrict, we'd have no one left on the platform" - Phillip Rosedale (HIFI) "We can't keep up with the ban list, we can't keep up with managing them... so we're going to leave it up to you to do so - in your own worlds.. hosted by you." (Paraphrased but famous famous words) This thing we're seeing in this topic and others on the SL forums as of late, is what kills a platform. What unites a platform is keeping the experience on SL on topic, where it was just fun to meet new people before they wore all their anxieties and issues on their sleeve - and made it the whole of their personality available to the world...

I would want something simple, high ceilings, open floor plan, As i can build to taste - a studio or warehouse type setting. Would be a minimalist theme, and then you can give us more LI to play with as a result

Whether you bake your Ambient Occlusion map in Blender or Substance Painter, this part of the tutorial Meshing with Jack - Substance Painter to Second Life shows you how to prepare it with transparency for use in Second Life. The portion timestamped is about processing the image in Photoshop to add the alpha transparency, etc.