LaskyaClaren

carolinestravels wrote: So, if you don't mind, would you now please role play someone who has actually given some serious thought to the ethical implications of what she has chosen to represent, and offer me an apology? Thank you! :-) No! Please stay on topic. I am not in the mood for yet another Gor bashing thread. If you are in that mood, open another thread please. But you're entirely in the mood for producing a condescending thread questioning the validity of people's interest in breedables? S'ok, you've answered my implied question about self-reflection and responsibility by not answering. Maybe we can reopen this when someone invents breedable kajirae. After all, they have about the same status as your average scripted dog.

carolinestravels wrote: I don't wish to get all polemical or anything . . . but I find it difficult to digest that someone who "ended up playing Gor for years" is in a position to question anyone's interest or taste in just about anything. Well then digest this: What you said is polemical, rude and ignorant as it suggests that playing Gor auto-deprives someone from the right to have an opinion about anything without you knowing what Gor role play actually is. If you would know, you would not have made this statement. I answered this one many times bevor, but especially for you I reapet it again: Gor is role play, is pretending, is acting. No more , no less. Just like star wars, star treck, Roman Empire, Dark Urban, Wild West and all other genres you might find in SL. When will people finally understand the difference between roleplay and "lifestyle"? Having played a certain setting or genre, does not make me a monster, nor does it put in me a position " not to able to have an opinion about anything. In addition I did not question anyones taste or interest, I simply enquirede, what is it that people get out of it? Hi Caroline, Speaking as someone role-playing a woman who thinks that "playing at" the rape, sexual violence, and extreme misogyny featured in a series of puke-awful novels written in opposition to the women's rights movement of the 60s while living in a "real world" in which such horrors are the everyday reality for hundreds of millions of women globally is, at the very least, the epitome of bad taste, insensitivity, and questionable ethics, I have to say that I take extreme offense to your statement. I'm just role-playing outrage! How dare you take umbrage at anything I say? Don't you know the difference between role play and real life? I am not responsible for anything I do or say while in character!!!! So, if you don't mind, would you now please role play someone who has actually given some serious thought to the ethical implications of what she has chosen to represent, and offer me an apology? Thank you! :-) (WHHHHEEEEEE! Role play is FUN! Look, ma! No hands! No personal responsibility!!!)

Perrie Juran wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: Is he saying these are core issues, or that these qualities are core to the way he exerts leadership? Because if the latter, this could be a whole new ball game. And boy am I ready for that. Empowering..... What I'm thinking is how difficult it is to do your job, to be responsible for something but have no Authority to do anything. I remember clearly one of the few times Dakota answered questions in the Merchants Forum, she opened up by saying she'd been given permission to discuss the topic with the Merchants. Certainly employees need guidelines and parameters in which they are allowed to function and act or they can cause you a sh*tload of trouble. But they still need the ability to act, especially when it comes to Customer Service. They do need some level of authority. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the primary Resident complaints are. And it is obvious that with the Code of Omerta that has shrouded SL, growth has not happened. So it makes sense to get rid of it. eta:spelling This is a mix, I think, of feel-good window-dressing, and a new (or perhaps old-new) form of communication with residents. I don't dismiss the "window-dressing" part, because SL residents need some positive reinforcement. It's been a long few years, I think, of poor relations between residents and LL, with confidence and communication plummeting under Kingdon, and contining a slow downward slide as Humble gradually closed off channels of communication. It is important, and not just for morale, that residents feel that they are being heard, and that they have input. It also, of course, represents not merely a "feel good" thing, but at least potentially a real substantive re-opening of communication. Having Lindens in-world again will mean that they are experiencing what we experience, first hand. This is more generally true, too, of an overall willingness to listen -- on the forums, through the Jira, and even on Twitter, because the residents of SL know this platform better than anyone else, including its designers. There is much that they can learn from the expertise of people here. This is all so important because, I think, SL is a platform unlike most others. SL is, to use the most modern parlance, "crowdsourced": it has been built, is being built, by both the technicians at LL and residents. It is a really kind of partnership: without LL, residents have nowhere to express their creativity, entrepreneurial spirit, social organization, etc., and without residents, SL becomes a giant empty wasteland. In other words, residents are the ones who add value to this platform. So other models of corporate-consumer relations are not entirely applicable here. And what we may now be seeing is a recognition, or a re-awakening, to that fact.

Pamela Galli wrote: Is he saying these are core issues, or that these qualities are core to the way he exerts leadership? Because if the latter, this could be a whole new ball game. And boy am I ready for that. Pamela, my reading is that he's saying that "empowerment" and "transparency" are central to the way he leads. That's what I meant by putting mechanisms in place for change. :-)

This just in from Ebbe Altberg on Twitter: Ebbe Altberg ‏@ebbealtberg - "@marimccann Thanks! I'm opening as fast as I can. Jira is coming. Lindens in SL will come too. Transparency and empowerment are core to me." https://twitter.com/ebbealtberg/status/438473990412058624 Open Jira? Lindens in SL again? No, it's not an instant fix for all the problems. But it's putting into place some of the mechanisms we need to address such issues, including maybe the ToS. Pretty hopeful stuff. :-)

ViglenTrancer wrote: To the OP - it's an attitude too, all the original sl nekos were griefers and would never back down from a fight, to the point the vampire clans crumbled because we were hitting their sims so hard. The real neko hardcore all dissolved around 2011 (or got banned) or gave up when every dullard in a ballroom frock started turning up in their Freebie Galaxy ears and tails. We were 'criminal class' at one point, but it was a lot of fun running wild from sim to sim. Cuz, when you're a Jet . . . :-)

carolinestravels wrote: Most people don't really want to know when they ask "what's the point". They're simply being dismissive, because it's not an enjoyment they share, and they don't understand it. It's easy to be dismissive of things you don't understand. (that's not be being crass, harsh, or rude, either, ftr, simply the truth, lol). It's usually why you can't get a "straight answer", because the question comes across as rude. Tari nope! I am serioulsy interested what the kick or the fun is, people seam to get out of this. Maybe the only way to find out is trying myself! I hope its not addictive or such - last time I "tried" something to find out whats the kick, I ended up playing Gor for years! I don't wish to get all polemical or anything . . . but I find it difficult to digest that someone who "ended up playing Gor for years" is in a position to question anyone's interest or taste in just about anything.

Redwood, I didn't know Chayla, but she sounds both a lovely and creative person. One of the wonders of Second Life, I suppose, is that we can be touched on so many levels by the people we meet here. You obviously were. I'm very sorry to hear of this. Please accept my sincere condolences.

ObviousAltIsObvious wrote: http://emshort.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/post-linden/ if she gets it back, it will reappear. if she doesn't get it back, we can guess that LL has some other plans for the versu technology. I hope it does reappear -- the more I read about it, the more intrigued I am. Maybe, if the IP is released to her, or becomes open source, it could be a crowdfunded project? Or, from the sound of it, there might be university educational IT developers who might want to take it on (if they can get R&D funding for it). (ETA: But I'd also like to see it freed from the stranglehold of iOS and the Evil Apple Empire.)

Perrie Juran wrote: "After careful consideration, Linden Lab has decided to cease development and support for dio, Versu, and Creatorverse. We’re grateful for those who took the time to experiment with these products in their early days, but ultimately we have determined that due to a number of factors, we and our customers will be best served by focusing our efforts on continuing to provide exceptional service and compelling new experiences for the users of our other products." http://lindenlab.com/releases/linden-lab-refocuses-product-offering Ciaran Laval makes some interesting points about the discontinuation of Versu, here. http://sl.governormarley.com/?p=3705 And of course, there's also a brilliantly insightful comment by me. :-)

HarleiQuinn wrote: thank you all. I pretty much know what the TOS and all states but I wanted to be doubly sure. I did file as my personal RL info was given to mutal friends by here . she denies but yet THEY had no idea WHOM I was in RL until today .she even told them my RL Facebook page and twitter, etc . All happened in world. People have no need to play into drama but when they flat out tell you that someone you were with is now sharing your RL details in open chat, via IM,s then there really is no denying it. I said my peace at the end, wished them the best and moved on, unfortuneately Bitterness, Jealousy and Resentment got the best of them. If she did in fact communicate this information through one of the communication tools provided by LL, then her denial doesn't mean anything: LL will have access to the IMs, DMs, etc. Unfortunately, LL does not communicate the results of their investigations to the reporter, so you will likely never know if action was taken or not, unless (perhaps) her account suddenly disappears without trace. Good luck to you. Moving on as you did is by far and away the best option. :-)

Of course, sadly none of this can repair the damage of the disclosure itself. :-( For what it's worth, disclosure is pretty reprehensible, and is pretty generally viewed as such within the SL community. She/he is probably looking a lot worse by her/his action than the information disclosed is making you look.

It is indeed a violation of Community Standards. item 4. Disclosure Residents are entitled to a reasonable level of privacy with regard to their Second Life experience. Sharing personal information about your fellow Residents without their consent -- including gender, religion, age, marital status, race, sexual preference, alternate account names, and real-world location beyond what is provided by them in their Resident profile -- is not allowed. Remotely monitoring conversations in Second Life, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without the participants' consent are all prohibited. https://secondlife.com/corporate/cs.php And, if it occurred in-world, on the forums, the feeds, or anywhere else that is in the direct control of Linden Lab, then it can and should be ARed, preferably by those who received the information. Unfortunately, however, LL can and will do nothing about disclosure that occurs outside of Linden Lab's own web properties or in-world. So, if this is being distributed by email, for instance, or on a blog, there's actually not much you can do about it. Edited to add link to Community Services

Leia36 wrote: If you look at my first post I used the phrase "in my opinion" several times, to show that, while my views may not be popular, they are MY opinion and not LL nor anyone else's .. Am I prejudiced against child RPer's? .. Yes and emphatically, here is why .. I see the practice as highly questionable, unlike most other forms of RP, if you go to an info hub in a child AV you face ridicule and scorn at best .. Go there as a furry, elephant, robot, motorcar, slave, warrior, elf just about any AV you can think of and little will be said ... But cross that line .. Have a child AV, and people instantly get defensive and/or hostile. as for the why, I think it is in part related to the way the media deals with children, and ourselves ... Pretty much nothing is as sacred as a child in the eyes of 99.9999% of people. As I said in my opening statement I do not see how child AVs can ever be used without THE QUESTION arising and so I deal with it simply .. I refuse to acknowledge or interact with child AVs .. if that offends you well then block me and be done .. I am not changing. Aye Syo we know each other, and if you recall I have had this argument before on this forum, I value our friendship and I must tell you that I agree with you most of the time, but on this issue I will not budge.. SOME people abuse SL by using it as a platform for kiddy porn .. do I have proof? no .. but I do not need to see the residue of that, however innocent it may seem. Hi Leia, and thanks for the clarifications! You raise a number of points here. First, it is of course your opinion. As, indeed, is my own attitude. I certainly don't harbour the illusion that I have unmediated access to "The Truth." So, we'll accept that as read. At the same time, however, one always presumably has reasons for one's "opinion": the questions are 1) how conscious of those reasons are we, and 2) how rational are they? Your second point seems to be relying upon cultural or social norms. Your argument is, as I take it, that other people don't like child avatars, so there must be something behind such dislike. Or, alternately, that your view is validated by the fact that others hold it as well. I'm not sure how really rational or valid such an approach is, although it is certainly understandable: we all often conform to social norms without really interrogating them. In the US deep south for a very long time, the "social norm" was the firmly held belief that blacks were inferior. In a great many parts of the world, social norms hold that people who are "Queer" are abnormal or "sick." You would surely not agree with these viewpoints merely because a majority of others might hold them? In passing, I'd also suggest that maybe this sort of response applies to other avatar types as well. There are a great many places in SL where furries, for instance, are emphatically not welcome, merely on the basis of a common perception that furries are "weird." I agree that we have, as a culture, sort of fetishized childhood. It "represents" innocence, and so we are very sensitive to anything that seems to undercut that symbolic equivalence. But, again, why should we accept that unquestioningly, merely because, as you say, the media and popular culture reinforce it? The popular media also tends to push particular models for female attractiveness, as well, and yet we know that these have changed over time. I think it is vital that we continually question such received "truths," or we become passive consumers of our culture, rather than critically self-aware participants in it. I'd also suggest that one of the things that attracts people to age play is precisely that "innocence." They want to recapture it in some way. Why should we assume that in doing so they are also contaminating it? Your third point seems to argue that, because child avatars may, just possibly, be engaging in sexual role play, we should therefore condemn everyone on the assumption that they may be doing so. This is surely to presume guilt even where there is absolutely no evidence? Your opinion about child avatars is, of course, your own, and I'm not going to suggest that you should not have the right to hold it, or let it dictate your own actions. I do think, however, that you might want to examine the reasons behind it and consider how valid they really are. And you might consider that there are ways, and ways, of responding to others who engage in something that you dislike. You can be censorious and accusatory . . . or you can simply have nothing to do with them, without accusing them of things for which you cannot possibly have evidence. Surely the latter is the better principle? I ask of you no more than I'm always doing myself: one of the reasons I enjoy discussions like this is precisely that they force me to constantly question and critique my own perspectives. :-)

Madelaine McMasters wrote: What I see here is dogmatism. I don't beliieve Leia imagines that every person roleplaying a child has sex on their mind. I don't believe she imagines... anything at all. That's what dogmatism is all about no? You draw the line and you don't think past it. I do that all the time, I just don't know when or where. Yes, she certainly is dogmatic. What that doesn't really tell us, however is why she is so. You "believe" that this is an unthinking attitude, and insofar as she seems to be emotionally, intellectually, or imaginatively incapable of grasping the possibility of a rationally valid alternative, you are right. But that doesn't imply that the origin of her dogmatism is unthinking. "Thinking" need not mean "correct" or "logical" after all. To some degree, though, this is leading us away from the constructive question at hand -- is there a rational reason for disliking non-sexual age play -- and towards the much murkier and less creditable territory of psychoanalyzing Leia. Madelaine McMasters wrote: The person who had the most profound influence on me loved to roleplay a child, though "roleplay" isn't really the right word. He was being. He taught me never to let go of those aspects of childhood he cherished, curiosity, playfulness, the ability to feel wonder all day long. And I hope my friends see some of that in me, for I am Daddy's Girl though and through. So, when I put on my Lucy Van Pelt avatar, I can feel the mischievous presence of Charles Schulz and my father, and hope I do them proud. I'm not roleplaying. I think I might want to argue that all "roleplay" is a bit like this: if it appeals to us at all, it is because it expresses a part of ourself that we feel needs expression. What distinguishes "roleplay" from "being" in the larger sense is that the former is a conscious act of artifice: you are deliberately assuming a role that may speak to part of who you are, but that you are also declaring is not identical with yourself. So, you are roleplaying, maybe, when you become Lucy, not in the sense that you are departing from "who you are," but because you are using artifice -- a particular avatar -- to declare and highlight that expression. You know, it may be too early in the morning for this conversation . . .

Qie Niangao wrote: Possibly. Literature, however, is not just reading, but also writing. As is roleplay. Certainly. There is a large area of overlap between all three categories: reading, writing, and roleplay, and RP of course partakes of both the others. But, while all three are "immersive" to some degree, the immersiveness of RP is different in some important ways. For instance, there is a logic to the unfolding of a narrative in both reading and writing that need not necessarily apply to RP. How that difference applies here, though, is the question. Qie Niangao wrote: I mean, it's fine if some people think their SL is all about teh sexors. That they'd presume to impose that view on others -- and impugn others' motives on that basis -- well, that's where it's wrong, sick, or both. Yes, agreed, when that is what is occurring. But I can imagine scenarios -- say, a man or woman who was abused as a child in RL -- where other motivations and factors might come into play. And I suppose it's possible that Leia's objections to age play do not assume that it is always sexual; she may have other objections to it. But we won't know until or if she clarifies.

Qie Niangao wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Qie Niangao wrote: I'm "quite confused" at this point. Is there seriously an argument being made that all roleplay of children is bad? Or is there just a shorthand for sexual roleplay? I mean, if it's all child roleplay, then Huckleberry Finn must be morally equivalent to child pornography -- and anyone who would assert that would have to be more corrupted than a child abuser. I don't think that the sexual/non-sexual distinction is being made here at all: I think all age play is being condemned in a blanket fashion. To quote Leia's first post here, "There is nothing sweet or innocent about a grown adult impersonating an 8 year old for any reason." I've heard this argument before, as, I know, have you. That's disappointing, and surprising in this case, but yes, I've heard it before. I guess a charitable interpretation might be that the view derives from a very limited appreciation of role play. That's more charitable, anyway, than the obvious interpretation, which I think applies to some others who've expressed that view in the past. The explanations I've heard in the past have tended to rely upon imputing motives to those engaged in age play that were simply not demonstrable. They relied upon blindly accepting the objector's view that age players must be up to no good because, well . . . just take her word for it. I suppose it could represent a failure of the imagination, or an inability to understand what role play is and does, or a host of very personal associations to which we can't have access. In any case, it is certainly not logical or, so far as I've ever seen, rationally demonstrable. In fairness, I will suggest, with reference to your earlier posting, that there is a difference between reading Huckleberry Finn and role playing it as a child. But that difference need not imply what Leia is obviously implying.

Syo Emerald wrote: I know she is not the first person who looks down on childavatars and makes such statements, but since I met her inworld and know her for a while I'm shocked that she belongs to said people. Its shocking to see how people suddenly drop all liberal and tolerant traits and turn into some monsters with the attitude of some right-wing conservative/religious extremist. On top of that its pretty much a "glas-house" situation. There is more than one thing that she enjoys doing, that would require at least some, if not a lot tolerance and openess from others. Don't throw rocks, if you are sitting in a house made of glas. In general, I agree with you of course. But there is something about our cultural notions of "children" and "childhood" that tends to throw normal logic right out the door. It's a culturally-specific thing, of course: our entire definition of "childhood," what defines it, and what it "means" is historically contingent, and relatively recent (i.e., within the last 3 centuries or so). But there is so much emotional baggage attached to the whole concept of "the child" that we tend, as a culture, to respond in a knee-jerk and highly emotional way to anything that seems to even remotely threaten it.

Qie Niangao wrote: I'm "quite confused" at this point. Is there seriously an argument being made that all roleplay of children is bad? Or is there just a shorthand for sexual roleplay? I mean, if it's all child roleplay, then Huckleberry Finn must be morally equivalent to child pornography -- and anyone who would assert that would have to be more corrupted than a child abuser. I don't think that the sexual/non-sexual distinction is being made here at all: I think all age play is being condemned in a blanket fashion. To quote Leia's first post here, "There is nothing sweet or innocent about a grown adult impersonating an 8 year old for any reason." I've heard this argument before, as, I know, have you.

Syo Emerald wrote: So yeah, roleplaying a female slave is absolutly sane and fine, but chosing a childavatar makes the person a psycho and pedophile instantly? LOL. Also...not every childavatar engages in any sort of RP or at least not all the time (family- and school-roleplays seem to be popular), but for you it makes them instantly part of some creepy rp by chosing a certain type of avatar? Then I must be roleplaying a redhaired woman all the time without knowing it... You are really barking at the wrong tree. Leia is by no means the first person I've known to express this kind of view. It's an inconsistency in attitude that I've never understood, nor ever heard a really coherent explanation for. Role playing adult-themed taboos (sexual violence, rape, snuff, slavery, etc.) which may involve RL women taking on the role of "victims" is perfectly ok, doesn't have deleterious social effects, etc. It's just RP, right? Child-themed role playing that almost certainly does not involve RL children, on the other hand, is terrible and must be stopped, because, somehow, it's not just RP. Because children? How much of this attitude is logical, and how much purely emotional? I'll be interested to hear if Leia responds; I'm quite sincerely interested in hearing the justification.

Happy Rez Day, Cheri. Be sure to do something crazy. Something not possible IRL. :-) ETA: Oops. Too late then! ;-)

Dillon Levenque wrote: I did look at your blog, Jo, and I think what you're doing is a good idea, too. But having found this just as I came online I did want to take advantage of the chance to be the first one in. I wish you hadn't revealed this, Jo. After all these years I'd hoped that was all forgotten. But yes, it's true. You can't possibly imagine what it felt like to first look upon my avatar and see myself finally rid of that bent nose. Oh, well played, Dillon. Well played. :-D

Pamela Galli wrote: SL has a huge moat. We are so invested in SL -- both emotionally and financially -- that it is going to be extremely difficult for anyone to offer significant competition. The only thing that could possibly compete, at least for the near future, is High Fidelity, and only because eveyone is going to look at whatever Phillip Rosedale does. I agree with this, except that I don't think that High Fidelity will really constitute direct competition for Second Life. I say this because I think HF is going in an entirely different direction, with a particular focus upon "real life" applications rather than virtual environments. It's more like bringing the virtual into the real, than entering into a virtual world (as I blogged a while back <shameless_self-promotion>here</shameless_self-promotion>). Quite possibly this kind of blend of AR and VR may eventually spell the end for purely virtual worlds like SL, but that will not be because it's providing an alternate world. It will be because the entire nature of virtual reality will have changed.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Is it too late to send you my pic? I want to go on the space shuttle! Or whatever they're using these days. ;-) I'd have to pack you into a Russian Progress supply ship, next to or inside some cans of borscht. Still wanna go? I'm fairly fond of borscht. Does cabbage travel well in zero gravity, do you think?