[How does your avatar look today ?]

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 😀

[I have a question.]

3 hours ago, Jennifer Boyle said:

I read this whole thread with astonishment. It seems that people are horrified by the idea of a 13-year-old-appearing avatar with developed secondary sex characteristics. What is wrong with you people?

In Real Life, the majority of 13 year olds have developed secondary sex characteristics. The majority of 13 year old girls in RL have pubic hair, have developed breasts, and are having menstrual periods.

So 13-year-old avatars cannot be realistic depictions of RL 13 year olds?

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.

[What are we reading]

 

A really interesting and thought provoking read.

[I have a question.]

7 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

If I might humbly proffer a little well-intentioned advice . . .

I don't think the Big Words are the problem. Me, I use de Big Words alot here. "Big Words Scylla" is what they call me here. (Which is a whole lot better than what they used to say was "Big" about me at the pool hall I used ta hang out at, let me tell ya lol!)

But I think the real key to acceptance here is BEING SHOUTY.

No, seriously. See that "cap locks" key? Use it! Trust me, THEY LOVE IT WHEN YOU ARE SHOUTY!

Just ask anyone. @Rowan AmoreWE LIKE SHOUTY, DON'T WE? Tell him!

 

 

Welcome to the forums, Synesthetique. You'll do just fine here. 🙂

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 have a question.]

56 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

Or maybe a euphemism was used to convey the same astonishment you are obviously sensating.

I must confess to @Drake1 Nightfire :  he is right about you being sounding pompous. Can this beligerent tone of yours towards us be tempered somewhat ?

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.

[I have a question.]

3 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Seeing as the rest of the posters had a negative thing to say about the OP's choice and idea, while you bandied about with pompousness and 5¢ words, perhaps you should have been more blunt instead of trying to call out others.

Making an av anatomically correct doesn't instantly tick the sexualization button. It does tick the creepy possibly paedo ones though. 

I realize you are new, but there are rules on the forums. You really cant be very harsh and blunt or they will delete your post. Plus, you do know the saying about assuming something, right? 

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 😀

[I have a question.]

1 hour ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

NO, just no.. There is sophistry here.. Making a 13 year old av that is overly developed is creepy. The fact you dont see that worries me.

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..

[I have a question.]

2 hours ago, Orwar said:

   I'm confused as to why a made up character that isn't even a human being is being described as '13 years old but overly developed'. That's pretty creepy.

2 hours ago, Nick0678 said:

Doesn't look 13 .. or human.

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 😀

[How does your avatar look today ?]

On 9/27/2021 at 12:26 AM, Conifer Dada said:

In a few hours I'll have officially been in Second Life for 15 years so I thought I'd better get some pictures in case I automatically turn into a pumpkin at midnight (SL time!). 

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.

[Do your own research]

25 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

The bulk of education isn't focused on discovery, it's focused on getting someone to tick the correct predefined boxes on a test.

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 😀 

[Does Second Life plan to get into NFTs ?]

38 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

a thing about why you are getting a little bit of pushback from some of the seasoned SL residents on here

is because much of what Decentraland is offering has already been done in Second Life

and some of the promises, particularly around ownership of virtual land, being made by the Decentraland owner are quite fraught. The Second Life owner in the beginning made the same promises about residents owning their land, which all came unstuck in the California courts system when Linden got sued over it, when they banned a resident from the platform for manipulating the system to the resident's advantage

Decentraland have also said that in the event that they can no longer host the virtual land which their users own  then they (Decentraland) have a contingency plan, but they can't say what it is exactly

which I suppose could mean that because the token to  proof land ownership is included in the etherium blockchain then that will always be the case. The land owner continues to hold the land title which they can proof. Just that the land to which the title attests can't be accessed anymore thru a future non-existent Decentraland world server

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 😀

[Does Second Life plan to get into NFTs ?]

1 minute ago, Mollymews said:

i can only go off what you write. Which was about NFTs which is what I quoted

we can't talk about bitcoin generating tech or services like Decentraland which are predicated on the same tech without talking about simulated scarcity, which is intrinsic to the model

we can also talk about proof of ownership that blockchain tech provides, but so to can a SQL database and a report writer

for sure blockchain tech is kinda cool, but then so too are the stores from Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc for digital products. None of these  stores see any need for blockchain tech to stimulate user growth

and yes for sure, people who do create in SL can move their products onto any of the NFT markets, some are doing this already themselves. They don't need Linden to facilitate this for them. Which is maybe your point , that Linden should

 

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 😀

[Does Second Life plan to get into NFTs ?]

25 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

the point of NFT is to simulate an RL physical resource. Which is finite. When finite resources are consumed then scarcity results.  To simulate this virtually then we arbitrarily put a cap on it - pick  a number.  End result = simulated scarcity.  The whole blockchain asset thing is predicated on simulating scarcity

the issue that you may not be considering is that this model doesn't work for those who make virtual products for the virtual mass market (main street) in which there is no virtual scarcity of resources. The manufacturing plant for a virtual product intended for Main Street is limitless. Make one item then press copy, and the plant will chug on manufacturing copies forever

just say Linden did want to simulate scarcity then they don't need any blockchain tech to do this

Linden would only have to announce they will not be hosting anymore regions than they are now.  What there is, is all there will ever be forever more. And people can still trade land

 

 

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.

[Does Second Life plan to get into NFTs ?]

1 hour ago, Qie Niangao said:

No, the question is still very much "WHY" and the reason it smells to pixie dust is that all the posts are about how great it would be, if only we lame Luddites understood, because everybody's doin' it.

It would dispel a lot of skepticism if there were a specific example of a thing for which there'd be a plausible market relying on some integration between SL and the NFT asset class. Of course anybody at any time can mint an NFT of an SL asset or (better I think) a record of an SL event—go for it—but how does that benefit from any integration whatsoever with SL itself? Or if this isn't about integration, what is it about?

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!)

 

[Does Second Life plan to get into NFTs ?]

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/

 

[Future of the metaverse, and all that]

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.

[Can we have a political sub forum?]

17 minutes ago, Lillith Hapmouche said:

Politics and Ethics forum, whatever

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 🙂

[Can we have a political sub forum?]

52 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

There isn't really a way to separate out "political" threads from anything else, especially in "General Discussion." If someone starts a thread discussing acrylic vs. wool yarn for knitting it will become political, and you can generally predict who will be on what side and what they'll say.

ETA: Actually that one could get interesting, with it's petrochemicals vs. animal rights dynamic. I can imagine certain people will start arguing with themselves.

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.