Nalytha

I also really enjoy this thread and would love to see some more pictures! My large breedable cat is low complexity and I do almost always take him with me (when I know I will stay in one place once I arrive at my destination) However, he, and I assume many pets, have options to turn scripts off. For instance, I usually find a place to sit and set my cat on one animation: sit/sleep. He doesn't move until I change the settings. He's just in a pose. Edit: There is ONE place I do let him stay scripted. However, this place also has a scripted breedable cat in the same area. I turn off the scripts if the place gets busy. No one has ever complained about lag increasing from him though. On the contrary, he has so many fun animations, people are delighted to see him. A giant unicorn cat that farts rainbows, plays with butterflies, sleeps with a seahorse, and sticks out his blue tongue. He can really be a conversation starter when chat is dry.

I will not comment one way or another on the use of security in Second Life. I can see the merit of both sides. I will say this, however: I no longer "explore" Second Life by foot/flight/etc. It's simply not a fun experience for me, due almost entirely to the security systems in place. However, my contentment with exploring does not trump your right to security. Do you, Boo. I'll do me.

I am guessing you mean, are sex offenders allowed to play Second Life? I know of no rule which states they can not.

Ah I see. Our experiences with MUDs are drastically different and I can understand why you find them being brought up irrelevant to the topic. The majority of MUDS are/were online universes driven by the players. They were the introduction to MMOs and the beginnings of the possibilities such as Second Life. In them, you could customize yourself, interact with objects, socialize, have a home, play games, etc. Most of the things you can do in Second Life you could do in MUDs, to a much more limited extent (however, it could be argued that you were only limited by your imagination). Actually, the social interaction I found to be of much higher quality. In Second Life, I often find myself in a social place like a club or coffee shop or what not and only see people say "Hello." over and over again, with very little substance. Sure, I'm sure some of them are having private conversations, but I imagine not all. In MUDs, where everything relied on text, the conversations were of much greater imagination and substance.

What a lovely video. Thank you for sharing that. Perhaps this time it is I that have a too limited definition, but for me, I live LIFE and only life. I play in virtual worlds/games (the two are one and the same to me when they concern MMOs)

I've never played a MUD that was suddenly "over" at some point...

Pamela said she doesn't say she plays for a living. I've seen multiple SL documentaries where sellers explain how great it is that they can make money playing a video game. It's obviously, to some degree, subjective.

The Iron Realm MUDS are still around. I still log in every once in a while. MUDs were my entry point to online gaming. It's a great example of the playerbase shaping the world, instead of just the game makers. Much of those games are/were playermade -- economies, religions, class systems, wars, etc.

There are two parts to these sorts of games: The tangeable program and the more elusive definition of the world created. World of Warcraft is a program that I can download and run on my computer. It is filled with lots of zeros and ones. It is a platform to play.... the WORLD of Warcraft. An immersive world where we interact with others and the world. The platform (program) controls the limits by which I can interact in the world. I am not playing the platform. I couldn't. That would be absurd (which is where I take it most of you are at) I am playing in the WORLD that is only made possible BY the platform. Second Life is a program, a platform. I can download it and run it on my computer. I can not play this platform. I can only run the program which allows me entry to the WORLD of Second Life. I play the WORLD of Second Life. I do not play the platform.

Your definition of the word Second Life is too limited. Second Life is not just some program you download and open. If that's all it were, sure, maybe we could end at the word "platform." However, Second Life is much, much more than that. Second Life is an entire WORLD, with all of the complexities that go into such.

Phil, my understanding of the English language is quite fine, I assure you. I am telling you that I PLAY Second Life. I don't know or care what you do, but I PLAY it. I play Second Life, like I play the Sims -- to dress up. I play Second Life like I play WoW -- to RP, I play Second Life like I play Minecraft -- to create. All of those are "platforms" to engage in whatever it is I wish to do, but in all examples, I am in fact playing. We can argue about platforms all day. Every game uses a platform to achieve the outcome desired. So does Second Life. Because so much of the content is character made, instead of by a creator as the majority of games are, it may feel like there is no game at all. However, the game is created by the users. You are right, Second Life is a platform because that's mostly all the creators gave us (which is grea!). That doesn't mean it's ONLY a platform.

LlewLlwyd wrote: ***But how could we get idiots to look in the tabs for things like KNOWLEDGE BASE and ANSWERS rather than just posting their stupidly repetitive questions in GENERAL DISCUSSIONS*** It's only repetative to those who have been here a while. To the person asking it, it is not repetative at all.

I'm sorry, but what you are saying is not making sense to me. It sounds like what you are saying is that anyone who says Second Life is nothing more than a virtual reality platform inherently is speaking the truth. Anything someone says to argue that Second Life is a game can only be using a supposition or hypothesis, and is therefore automatically discredited. Because, a lot of reasons have been given for why Second Life is not a game. And a lot of reasons have been given for why Second Life is a game. And even some concede that it is a game for some, while not others. But what it sounds like you are saying is any argument for Second Life being a game is weak and not worthy of countering.

"is not subjective. Wembley stadium is not football. This is the rule of logic being applied" So, to be 100% clear, your argument is that Second Life is not a game and anyone who says so is not being logical?

wherorangi wrote: the thing is that philosophy is quite disciplined (similar to science). It has rules. Things are grouped: supposition, hypothesis, theory, to which the rules of logic are applied a philsopher cant just say: I feel or think this is so. Their peers will ask them to apply the rules of logic Well, the video I posted showed one man's logic. There are multiple videos and articles you can find about this hypothosis. I'd leave it to you to decide whether the logic is sound. Philosophy is not a hard science though, and rules of logic are much looser to interpretation than science.

wherorangi wrote: yes. Is different in how we each feel and think about it. How we feel and think doesnt change the facts tho As I said before: I say play. I say game. Is only how I think and feel about it tho So, your argument is that it is either a game or it is not? It is not subjective?

I never said it was proved. I was remarking on the idea that some folks CAN view real life as a game, philosophically.

wherorangi, fair enough. I can't argue that. And I guess that's where we all have to deal with the fact that this experience is different for everyone.

Man, I don't know how many times I've thought to myself (irl) am I living in the Sims? There are actually scientists who make it their business to prove this hypothesis. I am 100% serious. Even the creator of Tesla believes we are living in a virtual world controlled by other beings. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/elon-musk-ai-artificial-intelligence-computer-simulation-gaming-virtual-reality-a7060941.html

Can I ask if the word "game" diminishes the value of Second Life to those who oppose the term? I mean to say, when someone says Second Life is a game, do you feel like they are cheapening something you hold dear? I've been playing MMOs since I was old enough to "dial up" which is almost two decades. Online games are not cheap experiences for me. They open up a whole new world (just as Second Life does). A world of possibility and wonder. A world where I have made meaningful friendships that translated in and out of that world. I have discovered more about myself and more about others through them. I just want to say, when I use the term "game." I by no means mean to cheapen your experience.

For me, both of these statements are true: 1. Second Life is a Virtual World. 2. I play Second Life.

I mean absolutely no sarcasm or anything, but have you thought to just ask? That would most likely render the answer as quickly as possible. If things aren't working out and you have no plans for them to, just ask and find out. He will either tell you or he won't. After that, mute him if you aren't going to remain friends. EDIT: You don't have to even admit to anything. You could ask, "Why do you think...<repeat what he told you>?"

I realized I contributed to going off topic in that other thread. Oh, great. Look I can actually say something on topic! I have been thinking about this a lot lately. Many of you already know I contend that Second Life qualifies as a game. But something some of you have said has been rolling around in my brain: A game has an objective. Second Life doesn't. Well, I'd have to argue Second Life DOES have an objective. A rather large one: Create Second Life. It is the player's task to build this world. From building the smallest bits of detail like textures and grass to the grandest mansions. From building sims where you can go to amusement parks or meditate in the woods. From building an economy in Second Life, where everyone is a player - whether you create, buy, or even just use "freebies." You may argue, "I don't build anything. So you are wrong." I would argue by the very fact that you log in and in some way interact in this world, you are in fact contributing to it's creation and longevity. You are a participant. You are a consumer. You are the demand that the suppliers (builders) need to keep creating, for them to find it worthwhile. Flying around Second Life, I'm sort of reminded of Minecraft. What's the point of that game? Create. So, yes, you need to deal with the things that go bump in the night. To me, that can just be replaced by player controlled characters -- griefers. (Yes, some games let you play as the good or bad guys). If you were to turn off the monster option in Minecraft, and all that was left was the ability to create, would you say Minecraft is not a game? I think creation games are some of the coolest. At the end of the day, this argument will never be solved. I suppose we have to accept that to some Second Life users, Second Life IS a game and to some, it is not. I guess to some people, it's just a chatroom with avatars.

I bought some beach textures and some wood ones for my home. I'll tell you one I had trouble finding though but I have seen in game -- a texture that is part grass and fades to a sandy beach. I ended up paying someone to make one for me.

wherorangi wrote: it was more that particular for sale sign that made me go oh! lol. Is some long history with that sign which you are unaware of and is no reason for you to be aware of wherorangi, I just wanted to let you know that I stumbled onto the history of this sign, and WOW. Actually, this is something I think should have been pointed out to me, and if it was, I am really sorry that I missed it. I found myself in a rabithole last night before bed, reading forums and seeing pictures that were years old. It gave me a very clear idea of exactly what you are talking about with this particular sign, and honestly, now I regret using it. Or at the very least, I wish I had resized it much smaller and turned the rotating script off, which I now know is something that can be done and something that must be done in order to meet TOS requirements and in fact not following these rules can result in me being reported. This also gave me some more context about the person who proclaimed I was extorting my neighbor. After reading about what users went through for YEARS in SL in regards to this sign, I can better understand his/her point of view. One difference, and I'm not sure it matters to some, is that those people did that with ill intent. They fully meant to take advantage of people and from what I understood basically blackmailed them with obscene prices. I still proclaim that I did not in anyway mean to blackmail my neighbor. I still contend that without knowing the history of the sign, I meant to use it as a form of communicating that the land was up for sale and give him a chance to purchase it before someone else does, as it appeared to me that he missed his chance to do so when I bought it (there was no such sign up and in fact nothing there but water so no way to let him know it was up for sale). As far as the price increase, I honestly believe the parcel was worth more to him than me, because it would complete his little setup. For me, it was one small parcel wedged between others. For him, he now controls that entire corner with the added benefits of protected land, sunrise view, etc. In any event, SL has a huge rich history and it has been very enlightening to learn about it.