SynesthetiQ

No disrespect, but the predominant aesthetic portrayed within these avatar selfie threads is a pretty derivative blend of Falcons Crest and Pirelli Calendar circa 1983 (maybe call it 80s noir if you want to be fancy 😀) It was a different time - smoking, alcohol, driving without a seat belt and asbestos in school buildings were all much more acceptable than they are today. Why not just roll with the perspective that the props used in these pics are historically appropriate and move on 😀

Hi Jennifer, I'm the one who really escalated the level of "outrage" on this thread, so thought I should respond to your apparent "astonishment". In answer to your straw man position "So 13 year-old avatars cannot be realistic depictions of RL 13 year olds?", I would reiterate my view that it takes a certain level of disingenuous sophistry to feign "astonishment" as to why a child avatar (of any anthropomorphic species) - designed with "overly developed" sexual characteristics as a requirement - would be seen as highly problematic and require further explanation. In truth my problem isn't actually with the OP at all. She may or may not have valid non "creepy" (to steal the forum vernacular) personal reasons for requiring such an avatar. My problem is with a community which minimises (and in your case pretends not to see at all) the very valid concerns and potential risks associated with the creation and subsequent use of such an avatar in SL.

A really interesting and thought provoking read.

Thank you Scylla, The truth is I adopt the Humpty Dumpty school of vocabulary use. When in doubt I lob a "Big Word" over the parapet. It doesn't really matter if it means what I think it means, just as long as it distracts from my idiotic argument! Thank you again for the undeservedly nice welcome, I promise to be (slightly) less" belligerent" in future 😀

I can see where you're both going but - just a tip - rather than "pompous" I think "supercilious" is the pejorative you're grasping for 😀 As for everything else, I really said all I wanted to say on this topic in my first post, the rest was just a bit of a derail for which I apologise.

Firstly, I can't vouch for what you may or may not class as pompousness or what part of my postings constitute 5¢ words. As far as I know I use vocabulary and language appropriately. I certainly wasn't aware that these forums required a special subset of the English language be used for fear of being perceived as pompous. In any event if the words get a bit long for you and you have trouble understanding, there's always Google. Secondly, I guess repeated use of the word "creepy" may be used to convey censure if you're in middle school, maybe not so much for anyone over the age of 14 when discussing a topic of this nature. Also apparently Orwar was "confused" which sort of dilutes the credibility his opinion either way. Thirdly, while I agree "anatomically correct doesn't instantly tick the sexualization button", purposefully accentuating and emphasising the sexual characteristics of a 13 year old girl is probably a clue that "anatomical correctness" isn't the main goal here. Fourthly, I'm not sure where I may have contravened the "rules of the forum", but if I have contravened them and am subsequently informed so by an Admin, I'll take that as a lesson learned. The question then I guess is, are you an Admin for this forum? Finally, I am aware of the saying you refer to, and I agree that my assumptions may have been invalid. However, given the nature of those assumptions, I'm quite happy to be labelled an "ass" if you're happy to be labelled within the group which invalidates those assumptions - a tricky sentence for you I know, but I'm sure you can work it out 😀

Dear Lord. My assumption was that if the most likely purpose of such an avatar was in fact the intended purpose, then we'd all be repulsed and disgusted to the point that the epithet of "creepy" is inadequate. To be blunt, I assumed that we would all be equally appalled by the sexualisation of a 13 year old female. My point was that in 3 of the first 4 responses on this thread, there seemed to be quite a bit of reticence in terms of calling out the OP and being specific about the "most likely purpose" of such an avatar. Apologies, I thought I was pretty clear, but obviously not clear enough..

TLDR: Sexualisation of Minors is abhorrent and unacceptable in any context , people should say so explicitly and in appropriately strong language - "pretty creepy" doesn't cut it. I have to admit that the level of coyness and even sophistry required to rationalise why someone might need an anthropomorphic avatar which is female, 13 years old, and coincidentally has "overly developed" sexual characteristics - I can't even comprehend to be honest. Occams' razor isn't always the best guide, but in this case you really have to want to see the alternative less likely explanation (not that there isn't one of course, it might just be that it's extremely opaque!). Now yeah I know, my "problem" is that I've not been here long and SL is a rich and nuanced environment which I'm not yet sophisticated enough to comprehend - and all that good stuff. In my view however, right out the gate, it does take an astounding level of crass sophistry to label this as simply "pretty creepy", and/or acceptable because it's all within the context of anthropomorphic role play, and/or acceptable because there's nothing in the rule book to say you can't. Apologies for getting on bit of a rant, but to be honest I've read some deluded conversations on these boards, and this is right up there. The upside is that it puts the whole moral question of "smoking as art" into perspective 😀

First off, as a relative newcomer to SL and these boards, I want to say congratulations and Happy Birthday! Secondly, within the relatively homogenous aesthetic of these boards, I wanted to compliment you on the contrasting loveliness and uniqueness of your avatar.

Depends on what's being tested. I'm pretty ambivalent when it comes to assessing how well a Philosophy student has retained knowledge.. by all means head off and "discover". On the other hand I'd quite like the surgeon about to operate on my heart to be able to tick the "correct predefined box" which represents my left ventricle; rather than go on a voyage of "discovery" around my spleen. Sometimes, just sometimes, knowledge and facts are important; as is one's ability to demonstrate their appropriate application. Not so much in the SL Forums of course, where self delusion and hubris almost always carry the day 😀

Hi again Molly, A bit of confusion I think. I'm no great proponent of Decentraland at all, in fact quite the reverse - but that's a discussion for another day. I was mainly just talking about the opportunity to create unique works of art in SL and publish those as NFTs to the Ethereum blockchain. I thought that for artists within SL who are creating genuinely unique digital artworks this would be a good way to guarantee IP protection and safe transfer of IP across all digital media. particularly given the almost exponential increase in the NFT market (for now at any rate) vs the relatively stagnant market of SL. Whether this was via export from SL and then minting via a 3rd party; or whether LL saw this as a way to leverage SL as a unique creative platform and integrate the minting process to reduce channel friction - all moot from my perspective. As with all new digital initiatives and stores of value there are potential risks as well as rewards so I completely understand a certain level of reticence and caution - maybe not the outright aggression - but hey, what can you do? As you say though, there seems to be a lot of "pushback" on these boards in general across a lot of topics, particularly those that suggest changes to the status quo - just the culture I guess. Genuine thanks for the interesting dialogue, but I can sense the "seasoned residents" circling, so will now bow out of this thread gracefully 😀

Thanks Molly, It's all really interesting and apologies if my last post was a bit high handed. I think we're all just feeling our way and trying to make sense of what the next few years might bring. The only thing that's certain is it's unlikely to be like the last few years! Either way, always good to discuss with other engaged people 😀

Hi Molly I do appreciate your response, however your depiction and understanding of NFTs is not accurate or correct. Apologies for being so direct, however any other response would mean we were discussing and talking about something completely different. Or worse still I'd just come across as a pompous idiot by explaining the subject (or at least my understanding of the subject) - I know, that ship has sailed 😀 I'm obviously happy to talk about supply and demand, the economics of virtual artefacts and all that good stuff, but we wouldn't be talking specifically about NFTs anymore.

Hello Qie, If you don't mind I won't respond to your very reductive first paragraph. From my perspective the WHY of addressing the current external NFT market for SL creatives is pretty clear. If you don't agree then you don't agree. In my defence however I would say that nowhere in the thread have I read the supporting reasoning to include "because everybody's doing it" - at the very least I think you're indulging in a bit of "straw man" rhetoric there. In terms of the benefits of an "Integration" with an NFT minting service - versus manually exporting an SL asset in a common digital format and then subsequently minting using an external tool; I would agree that the use cases haven't yet been outlined and thus it's difficult to say what the benefits would be. That's the domain of innovation after all, which is what SL creators do beautifully! I genuinely think however, given we see no trend towards an increasing SL population and hence internal market for SL creators, it might be the case that NFTs as a rapidly increasing channel would be a very profitable one to explore - whatever mechanism is used to address that channel in the short term. Given this perspective, and it may be that you refute such a perspective (only time will tell who is right 😀), there is often a business opportunity when it comes to removing friction to a new and profitable market. This is what a native SL integration and/or NFT marketplace would provide. To reiterate, the point of this would be to allow SL creators the opportunity to leverage the beautiful integrative platform which is SL to address the external and huge/growing market for NFTs outside of SL. As for your last sentence "if it isn't about integration, what is it about?", I apologise if my reasoning has been somewhat opaque, however I believe I have done my best to set my perspective out on that. Either way, the blog entry I referenced in my earlier post (and repeated here for clarity) would seem to at least hint at some sort of experimental MVP in this area by the owners of SL coming in the short to medium term(I admit that is my forecast timeline and again, only time will tell!)

Right out the gate, I have to admit I don't quite understand the immediate antipathy and apparent resentment to what seems a perfectly reasonable enquiry from Richelieu. My response assumes that anyone reading and/or responding to this thread does indeed understand what an NFT is (the market for which exceeded £2Bn in the first quarter of 2021), and what the Ethereum blockchain is (the market cap for which exceeded $500Bn in the first quarter of 2021) I also assume (hopefully), that the same audience has some appreciation of the fact that pejorative and dismissive language like "pixie dust" and "buzzword" in association with these technologies shows a certain isolationist and almost luddite view of the world in 2021. From my perspective then, it isn't so much that SL would provide a proprietary market for NFTs, it's that it provides an integrated platform for the creation of NFTs which might subsequently be marketed and appreciated within SL, but which might also find an open market and intrinsic value in the big wide world outside SL. I'm not quite sure therefore why vastly experienced SL practitioners find this a difficult pill to swallow. From my perspective as a relative noob, I see that much creativity exhibited within SL is actually created externally in Blender and (with some script support) Unity3D and imported via standard DAE format - the very same tools currently used to create NFTs on other platforms. SL is then just one possible channel for these artefacts. In addition (and in the opposite direction), much unique artwork in the form of images, artwork, video, fashion, dance and movement is created within SL and exported to other platforms (Flickr and YouTube to name but 2) - all of which may very easily (and admittedly at some non trivial cost) be moved to Ethereum as unique NFTs. I've seen beautiful examples of artwork which merge landscapes, fashions, movement, music, models into a seamless unique experience.. with the right approach this might be shared widely outside SL, have IP protected by default and realise true value in terms of audience and revenue. Why then would talented SL creatives (who seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time and effort trying to ensure IP protection) ask WHY? The real question as far as I'm concerned would be WHY NOT? As a final aside, I've also talked in a previous post about how differing strategies for the future of SL may impact residents and creatives alike. To see that Richelieu asks a timely question we only need to read this SL blog post from earlier in the month to realise that perhaps the new owners of SL are already considering strategic partnerships with modern in-game asset and experience experts such as https://www.epik.gg/

When discussing something like a "Metaverse" we have to be careful not to be swept away on a tide of marketing and PR rubbish. The whole situation is much more nuanced from an ontological and epistemological perspective than the corporate marketeers might have us believe. If for no other reason than, if we get it wrong, it has huge implications for society in terms of mental health and psychology at a very fundamental level. I won't bore you with a huge swathe of text, but the concept of the "metaverse" sits on a continuum which also includes that of the "omniverse" and the "universe". How we relate to and inhabit this continuum depends on how we view identity as conscious beings (none of us are true indivisible "individuals" in the strictest sense). Following on from this we should think about whether any view and/or context provides for "omnipresence" or "multipresence" or simple "telepresence".. again all of which have huge implications for our psyche. I'm no expert by any means - I don't think anyone is at this point - but I'm currently working in this area in RL. So if you're interested and open to sharing ideas (even if it's to call BS on my ideas😀) then say hello in SL (account name is the same). One of my favourite quotes and one which guides some of my ideas in this area is from Walt Whitman "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)" In my view, any "Metaverse" worthy of the name really needs to support this aspect of ourselves.

Or maybe a Political Ethics forum? Trouble is, if you expand the scope as much as that then it sort of defeats the object of the exercise doesn't it? Either way, give it a bash, it'll certainly be entertaining 🙂

For what it's worth, I completely agree with this. One person's Politics is another person's Ethics. They aren't synonymous, and deciding which is which usually leads to absolute carnage.