LaskyaClaren

Marigold Devin wrote: I don't think it could run on dial-up, but you might have better luck logging in with just a text-only client. Sure it could. With a draw distance of 5 feet and FPS of 1 frame per minute.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Her suggestion that this is a "10 year old game" is accurate enough, I suppose, but obviously doesn't account for the degree to which it has changed. I'm 43, and hope your statement works as analogy. Absolutely. You've changed at least 4.3 times as much as SL. And I bet you're much much less laggy than you used to be. :-)

Perrie Juran wrote: MizzKittenzz wrote: I downloaded Second Life, what in the world is a "viewer"??? As for my firewall that's not the issue, internet connection is also not an issue, PC is not an issue, as I've ran other games with better graphics at blazing speeds... It's just telling me login in has failed... -- I'm wireless but I don't see how that matters, as I'm really close to my router Knowledge Base article on Log In Failures: http://community.secondlife.com/t5/English-Knowledge-Base/Login-failure/ta-p/700109 We are however curious, if you have never used SL, how you know that the Graphics in other games are better? The message that the OP reported -- ""login failed (Waiting for server response)" -- doesn't appear in that particular article, which may be out of date? It sounds to me as though Marigold is right, and this isn't really a login problem, but rather a connection one? The OP says, btw, that she first tried SL many years ago. Her suggestion that this is a "10 year old game" is accurate enough, I suppose, but obviously doesn't account for the degree to which it has changed.

Marigold Devin wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Marigold Devin wrote: I feel like the experts on the forum have set you and me up for an early April Fool's joke with this one. Or maybe its just another incarnation of Tolya :matte-motes-whistle: Tolya would be funnier. :-) I am certainly not getting the Tolya vibe - whereas with you, I get the S.R. vibe - the forums has been missing some of its bigger characters, the ones who were here, like you I suspect, long before me. :matte-motes-big-grin: I heard she might be around again, a little. ;-) You know what they say about dogs returning to their vo . . . Actually, there has to be a prettier way of expressing that. Right? :-)

Marigold Devin wrote: I feel like the experts on the forum have set you and me up for an early April Fool's joke with this one. Or maybe its just another incarnation of Tolya :matte-motes-whistle: Tolya would be funnier. :-)

I'm afraid that you've just about exhausted my technical expertise on this subject. I can give you some standard advice, but you may have to wait for someone with more knowledge in this than I. 1) Do try, if you can, running it directly through ethernet, rather than by wireless. 2) Check your firewall settings and make sure it's not being blocked there. (It doesn't sound as though it is, but still . . .) 3) Perhaps try a clean re-install of the programme. In other words, uninstall, and then reinstall it from scratch. Some people have an easier time on other viewers, such as Singularity, but that shouldn't be the issue here, and especially not if you are working on a very good computer. Sorry! Wish I could be more help!

The "viewer" is the programme through which you log in and experience Second Life; it functions in a similar manner to a browser for viewing the web. And like browsers, there are a number of choices as to which one can use. There is the "Official" SL viewer, which you download from the Second Life site, and there are third-party ones. It sounds as though you are using the official viewer, however, so that shouldn't be the problem. Sometimes wireless can cause problems, regardless of the quality of the connection, because (as Marigold notes above) there is so much information being swapped back and forth. Can you try connecting directly to the internet, rather than through wireless?

God knows I'm no techie, but I can ask some obvious questions. I'll assume that your log-in information is correct, or you wouldn't have been able to log in here. What viewer are you using? Have you updated it? There have been a number of changes to these over the past few years, and some (such as Kirsten's and Phoenix) have been deprecated. Are you using wireless? You're sure that the app isn't being held up by a firewall? I think that the more detail you can provide, the better chance that someone who does know what they are talking about can help.

Freya Mokusei wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: (Also: it's not just students who are lazy or inept posting here. I've seen a number of academic researchers post absolutely embarrassing requests for information here.) I never mentioned age or experience, I think that was something you read into my posts. Quite possibly so, and if so I apologize. I think I was responding to your comment about university professors laughing them out of the room; I know more than a few of those who deserve to be laughed out themselves. :-)

Freya Mokusei wrote: Completely not against people using Second Life for research, education, blahblah, even surverys (heck, surveys used to be a micro-economy in SL). Problem is lame-o's who turn up, provide little-to-no information and ask redundant, ill-informed questions having had no background in what SL is or does. Like that person the other week who was asking if people take special precautions to feed their avatars healthy food, or to prevent them from getting sick. Not only is it done without any regard for its subjects or their environment, but typically any data they get back from such an untargeted request is so nonsensical that any university professor would laugh them out of the room. This type of thing isn't any kind of actual research or education. It's lazy people trying to waste our time. Freya out~! Again, I don't disagree -- except that frankly I am as apt to blame the instructor as I am the students, which is why I tend to try to be a little gentle with them. A professor wouldn't think of sending a student out to do real world research without providing background and guidelines on things like safety and ethics, but my sense is that many profs are quite willing to send them into SL without any preparation whatsoever. While I'm sure that many students do leave this to the last moment, are lazy, etc., etc., etc., I prefer myself to give them the benefit of the doubt. If, having been given some guidance, they don't respond to it, then they confirm that it is, in fact, their own fault. But I have seen some who have benefitted from that guidance. We'll see if this one does. (Also: it's not just students who are lazy or inept posting here. I've seen a number of academic researchers post absolutely embarrassing requests for information here.)

Freya Mokusei wrote: Lolno. Response was due to OP's complete lack of interest in SL before noticing their rapidly approaching deadline. Willing to bet that they won't even check back to this thread, let alone log in. Please see past history of noob-requests/surveys like this. Just another person who thinks we're an easily-accessed pile of lab-rats, waiting to be sociologicised. That is entirely possible. I posted something similar a month or so ago on another student thread -- he or she simply yanked it, rather than going to the effort of responding to my suggestions. I have no more objections, myself, to research being conducted in Second Life than I do to it being undertaken in RL. It's all potentially interesting and useful stuff, and as students are now spending a huge amount of time online in various venues, I think that courses that address issues such as online identity (which is really part of digital literacy) are potentially very useful. But I do entirely get your "lab rat" thing. I even blogged about it.

Syo Emerald wrote: Lasky, you have been here for less than six months on the forum, but look down on people telling the OP to make their homework by themselves? If you would have been here longer, you would react in the same way, becasue we regularly are seen as labrats by tons of students all over the world, who throw their sometimes badly written surveys and fast written questions at us. None of them cares to invest time into SL, some have never been inworld ever and just created an account to just post their stuff and then never care about it again. So no, this person as probably not even seen the landing point for new avatars. :catwink: Hi Syo, There's absolutely no reason why you should know this (although quite a few around here do), but, despite this avatar's age, I have been in Second Life for approaching 6 years, and was a regular poster here, and on the old Resident's Answers forum. In fact, I have many thousands of postings under my (collective) belt, and more than a few threads. I actually have a great deal of experience answering student surveys (and am moreover a university teacher myself, albeit one who doesn't use SL for education), and somewhat over 5 years ago even posted a set of guidelines for student postings to the forums on the SLED list. So this isn't really coming out of left field. But I do appreciate your concern and your views.

Hi Carla, Welcome to the SL Forums! There are many people here who would undoubtedly be delighted to help you, alongside the requisite selection of cranky "Hey-Kids!-Get-Off-My-Lawn" types. I think the sentiment you are hearing above comes, in part, from concerns that your research is going to be based entirely upon interviews, and that you have not taken the time to explore and learn about Second Life first-hand. A search for your avatar name comes up with nothing, which suggests that you have only very recently created it. Have you been in-world at all yet? Or gone beyond the welcome areas? Have you checked out any in-world stores, to get a sense of the selection, as well as the mechanics, of "fashion" in Second Life? You'll get a much friendlier and more helpful response if you can provide us with more details about what this project is, what you are looking for, and what other things you are doing to research it beside asking for interviews. You should also remember that Google is your friend: there has been a TON written on SL fashion, and on the subject of virtual identity, some of it in academic journals, but much of it freely available online. And because I'm not above shilling for my own blog, you can start off here: http://laskyaclaren.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/why-is-your-avatar-so-sexy-choice-and-the-two-cultures/ I look forward to hearing more about how you are going about this! :-) PS. The boots that you see in my profile on this page are "Engineer Boots" from the in-world store *COCO*. They are made of sculpted prims, and are my favourite boots. I have lots of boots. I like boots. :-) PPS. Avoid calling Second Life a "game." It really annoys some people, and it suggests that you don't know the platform very well yet. Call it a "virtual world" or "digital sandbox," or something to distinguish it from platforms like World of Warcraft. Second Life is for most a leisuretime pursuit, but it's not a "game" in the sense that MMORPGs are.

Qie Niangao wrote: Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Not "every1 takes their cut" in SL. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of users makes a loss. If that's not the case, we're headed for disaster, since if somehow everyone pulls money from SL, there won't be any left in SL itself to go around. Yeah, and that's putting it mildly. Every L$ that gets cashed-out, plus every fee paid to L$ sinks*, plus (especially) every estate fee and Mainland tier payment -- every bit of that -- comes from RL money infused into the SL economy by folks paying-in more than they take out of SL. Merchants may suppose that they're spending and cashing-out L$s earned in-world -- and, indeed, they earned those L$s in-world, but every single one of those L$s must ultimately derive from RL funds injected into the SL economy. Otherwise, the entire L$ supply would be exhausted quickly, like a leaky balloon. Certainly merchants and creators generate revenue for LL and expand the SL economy, but they do so only indirectly, by luring others to spend their hard-earned RL money on virtual goods and services in SL. There may be an invisible hand, but there's no free lunch. *L$ sinks are slightly messy because not all L$s ultimately derive from LindeX purchases from Supply, which are RL money infusions; rather, some L$s are sourced from stipends, which are ultimately paid for by membership fees -- again RL money infusions, but the stipend is just part of the value purchased with those membership fees, so the accounting isn't quite precise. This is very much to the point, and why it is reductive to suggest that the SL economy really reflects, or could every reflect, the RL economy. Governments may often be wasteful and inefficient, but they are not (in non-corrupt countries anyway) profit-making enterprises. LL, on the other hand, has to be, or at least has to pull enough out of the SL economy to keep its infrastructure running and its employees paid. When a government reinvests its tax revenues, most goes back into the economy (minus debt payments), but how much of SL's revenues do? Some, of course. But there's a great whack that goes into the RL economy instead. That's why people like Edward Castronova are so interested in virtual economies: not because they really model existing economic systems, but because they represent a new kind of economic and financial system, built to some degree on the voluntary contributions in cash and -- this is important -- labour of their "citizens." Arguably, the same can be said of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter: they provide a platform, but their users provide the content that makes them viable. I owned for a number of years in SL a small bookstore featuring digital versions of writing by women. I sold my books for between L$1 and L$5 each. I never turned a profit, nor did I ever expect to: that wasn't the point. My own financial investment in the business was small -- what was not small was the labour involved, which was, actually, quite immense. That labour may have added only a tiny bit of value to Second Life as a whole, but it was representative of that contributed by a great many other than myself.

Qie Niangao wrote: You think you've got it tough? Just try finding mesh dresses for boys! Or roosters.

Wooja wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Maybe I'll just stick to pretty pictures. I'm sure I have some of breedable kitties here somewhere . . . Wooja...reallywantmetorunscreamingfromthisthread Is it possible we have found the ultimate innoculum against a case of the Woojas? ;-)

Storm Clarence wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: sweety. =) I dislike it when you write words of affection you don't really mean. /goes back to watching for lola updates. You underestimate Dres's capacity for affection. And of course your own overwhelming attractiveness, which holds nearly all of us in its thrall. :-)

Well, the backhanded compliment is appreciated. :-) You are of course correct; I didn't signal the humour, and it was bound to fall flat as a result; vide supra Qwerty's response. And I don't have enough energy to sound illiterate these days; it's hard work! I do think back fondly on some of those posts, but they were, as you note, rather too prone to evoking po-faced critique from the tone-deaf. Which in turn says something, I suppose, about the state of critical reading and writing skills nowadays. Maybe I'll just stick to pretty pictures. I'm sure I have some of breedable kitties here somewhere . . .

Wooja wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: I'm surprised that "Wooja" is not all over the fact that a thread dedicated to our new CEO has turned into a discussion of virtual lap dogs. :-P FIFY! Woofa...frightensthelolcatsawayanyway Grrrr. IT WAS A PUN!!!!!

I'm surprised that "Wooja" is not all over the fact that a thread dedicated to our new CEO has turned into a discussion of virtual lab dogs. :-P

Wow. That was fast! So far so good, eh? :-)

Vryl Valkyrie wrote: To be honest I do miss having Lindens inworld but it's the other possibility of corruption that I hate... and I'm not accusing Lindens of being corrupt but I feel that if we are not careful going back to the old ways can lead to corruption, intentional or not. If they can have an inworld presence without joining resident groups or vise versa, fan groups, etc adding favs to their picks, then possibly it can be a positive. I still think it should be limited on a control basis, not random "wow there is a linden" where they become this kind of iconic subculture popstar, if that makes sense. It makes perfect sense. :-) And there should certainly be rules in place to prevent favouritism, cronyism, and so forth. I think it's entirely fair, for instance, that Lindens should not be permitted to belong to shopping groups or include resident businesses in their pics. That's just good ethical practice.

Vryl Valkyrie wrote: Thanks Laskya for your post but personally I see giving Lindens an inworld presence again is a step backwards. I don't see anything empowering with that other than for the people who will become their fans and worshippers by joining their groups, etc or striving to have their store in their picks. There will be too much room for abuse of power and all about who you know as in the good ole boy network is alive and well. Personally I feel that the SL experience is more immersive without inworld Linden presence or at least with limited presence except for special occasions like SL birthday or other major events. I take your point, Vryl: that is indeed a danger, and I know that this has been a complaint in the past. To be honest, though, while I do think that there is probably some benefit to "seeing" Lindens in-world, the main point of the exercise, as I see it, is to ensure that they (the Lindens) are experiencing the platform as we do -- being sometimes tripped up by glitches and problems, and alternately wowed by the amazing creativity of some of what our residents have built. I think it is good, not so much for us, as for them, to be "on the ground" sometimes.

Freya Mokusei wrote: Sorry, I still don't buy it. You might as well say that "all stories need balance between good and evil", or "all stories need a morally righteous outcome". It's just not true - there are plenty of good stories where all characters are evil. Game of Thrones (another popular roleplay environment in SL) provides a singular example of this, there are many more. I don't think roleplayers are children expecting a Grimm Brothers (a morally-clear, simple to understand story with obvious 'good' and 'bad' and where 'good' typically triumphs over 'bad') tale. You're welcome to do the research to demonstrate that "normalised abuse" results in (or is caused by) "evil people", but I'd still counter that most* roleplayers understand the difference between right and wrong, and morality is not absorbed simply from participating in roleplay - regardless of how 'evil' the roleplayed world might be. Adults are capable of processing morally ambiguous stories and subjects, and critically evaluating grey areas. I've never met anyone who takes part in Gor, who doesn't understand that the things that may be 'OK' in Gor are 'Not OK' in real world. So I present that your fictional 'evil roleplayer' does not exist in reality in any quantity beyond the incidence of psychopathy et al within the general population. This is the same junk argument as Grand Theft Auto/Call of Duty/Dungeons & Dragons turning people into killers, and watching films about Satanism and 'the occult' encouraging people to join cults. As far as I'm concerned, this is the end of this tangent without evidence that people like this do exist beyond the percentage of empathy-recuding mental disorders. Without evidence that this type of roleplayer exists (or is at risk of existing), you're simply making this up to suit a concern-trolling agenda. *most, as in, the incidence of empathy and other social traits match between populations of non-roleplayers and roleplayers. This accepts some incidence of empathy-reducing mental disorder being present in both populations. Hi Freya, You're not really responding to my argument at all -- you seem to be responding to what you think Pussycat is saying instead. I agree entirely that Star Wars is a reductive simplistic binary-driven world view. I actually think it's a rather idiotic one precisely because it eschews moral complexity and ambiguity. But then it was your example, not mine. I was responding to what you said. The research on the impact of violent games is far from conclusive. I think, personally, that that is because it is such a very complicated subject, and human subjectivity is such that people don't respond the same way to the same stimuli: there is an enormously large number of variables involved. Of course GTA and Gor doesn't turn people into rapists. But then I never suggested that it did. What's more, if you read Pussycat's response, she is not doing so either. Do games and role play impact on us emotionally and intellectually? Of course they do, or we would hardly bother with them, would we? But that's not the same as imposing the kind of reductive argument that you seem to think I am making. In passing, I might note that I have met Goreans who were "lifestylers," even if you haven't. They do not, of course, represent anything like the majority of Gorean RPers,. but they certainly exist. Norman's novels themselves were a polemical counterthrust to 2nd wave feministm -- he may not literally believed that rape is a legitimate tool for discipline, but there is absolutely no doubt -- as a Google search will show you -- that he intended his books as a polemic against equal rights for women. And that fact is not unimportant. One other point. I think that my response to you was civil and by no means unfriendly. It emphatically did not suggest that Goreans were rapists or "evil," and it did not attack you personally in any way. I am on this forum to engage in interesting discussion. I thought -- and still think -- that the post you wrote to which I responded was interesting, but flawed. My response was an attempt to engage in more discussion on the subject. In that context, labelling me a "troll" frankly says a great deal more about you than it does about me.

Freya Mokusei wrote: carolinestravels wrote: Pussycat Catnap wrote: If you do not wish to be bashed for supporting evil, then don't mention that you support evil. Its that simple. If I roleplay evil - I support evil? Seriously? Well thank goodness you don't participate in Star Wars RP. Gor might be violent and offensive to ones liberal senses on the small scale, but anyone roleplaying a Sith would (by Pussycat's logic) be guilty of genocide (or planetcide?) - for helping to engineer the destruction of Alderaan. I guess everyone involved in Roleplay should play good guys - villains, thieves, nogoodniks and murderers apparently aren't adding to storyline or providing protagonists - they're commiting evil acts (perpetuated by evil roleplayers). Taking a love interest hostage and tying them to the railroad tracks for the hero to rescue isn't plot/character development, tension and peril - it's kidnapping and psychopathy. Twirling of moustaches in-character proves without a doubt that the roleplayer is deriving some kind of sick personal pleasure simply for pleasures sake as the large steam engine rushes ever closer. Maybe someone needs help with books on the Fiction shelf. An interesting argument, Freya, but I'd like to submit that it's based on a faulty analogy. Star Wars, and by extension Star Wars roleplay, is premised on the existence of a Manichean universe, with a binary opposition between the "light" side of the force, and the "dark." The latter is, without doubt, "evil," and is defined as such by the fact that it is in opposition to "light." Anyone roleplaying a Sith lord is consciously taking on an "evil" role, which is defined as evil in the game because there is also "good." And, although this isn't always apparent from individual movies, and is I am sure not always the case in the roleplay, it is "good" that wins in the end. Anyone RPing Star Wars "evil" does so knowing what happens at the end of the 6th movie. But none of this is true of Gor. The sexual violence and the misogyny are not defined as "evil" by the existence of an alternate, positively presented, world view. Who in Gor is actively fighting against rape, or the oppression of women? Where is the counterpart to this "evil"? There is none. On the contrary, rape, sexual violence, and misogyny are the norms; they are the accepted "good" in this world,. And they face no opposition. So, no, playing an "evil" Sith :Lord in Star Wars, against the backdrop of an imagined world that acknowledges that evil, is not at all the same thing as accepting rape and misogyny as normative values in a world that offers no alternatives to them.