Theresa Tennyson

Kleinu wrote: SL was working just fine, and then I restarted my Firestorm viewer. Nothing rezzes, my avatar won't load. I have tried it all. Graphics changing, group tag swapping, relogging, reinstalling my viewer, restarting my computer. I have tried 3 different SL viewers including standard Second Life. Short of setting my machine on fire in frustration, I would appreciate any technical advice available. Have you tried starting in a different region? Those things are symptoms of a region that's failing to completely connect to the whole Second Life system.

Phil Deakins wrote: The much better way of looking at it is that Second Life is just like the planet Earth. Both are worlds in which people can do all sorts of things, one of which is play games. A world is not a game. The Earth is not a game, and Second Life is not a game. Let's go to the operative quote before I have to start looking up Pantone numbers. The above is a simple and direct quote of the Deakins Corollary. I will concede that Earth is a world, and Earth is not a game. I will concede, for our purposes, that Second Life is a world. Mr. Deakins has stated that "World of Warcraft" is a game. I will accept that. After my pointing out noticeable differences between Earth and Second Life, Mr. Deakins has conceded that Second Life's worldness is different from that of Earth. "World" is part of "World of Warcraft"'s title. It bills itself as the "world" of a series of games, just as Second Life bills itself as the "world" of our collective imagination (ref: "Your world. Your imagination.") It certainly thinks of itself as a world. I have pointed out that "World of Warcraft" has qualities of worldness that are similar and in some ways nigh indistinguishable from those of Second Life. Indeed, I'd be willing to say that the qualities of worldness in Second Life as compared to World of Warcraft are much more similar than the qualities of worldness in Second Life as compared to Earth. This leaves the question: Is World of Warcraft a "world", which would make it both a "world" and a "game"? If not, why not? If so, wouldn't this mean that "worldness" and "gameness" are independent qualities, which would make the Second Life's status as a world useless for determining whether or not it is a game?

Phil Deakins wrote: Theresa Tennyson wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I'm in green Theresa Tennyson wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I'm in red. I'm in blue. Theresa Tennyson wrote: Freya Mokusei wrote: Nalytha wrote: Even if it's not a game, exactly what is wrong with the word play? It's been pointed out that that word is very versatile. I play music. I play movies. I play Second Life. But do you play Facebook? Play Google, or eBay? Can you play email, or play WhatsApp? What is it about Second Life that makes you think that you play it? The only other online services that people 'play' are (looking at Google results) gambling, sports or gaming related. Seems likely that 'play' is associated therefore with online gaming services. Think verb usage is important, and probably part of what leads to the cloudiness in making this determination. Non-technical types often make this mistake and, because they aren't corrected on the terminology, the misinformation spreads. Has always been the double-edged sword in SL - technical knowledge is low across the userbase as a whole. (Not that I think this misinformation really matters. People have been getting it wrong for a long time, and it hasn't mattered.) Facebook, Google, and eBay aren't simulations of anything. Wow! You got something right. Very well done! Phil maintains that is a world, "just like Earth" which is what it is. How and why is it just like the earth? If you haven't noticed that they both have land and water surfaces, then I don't know what I can say, except repeat what I've said before; i.e. they are both worlds and are like each other. One is real and the other is virtual. Let's try it this way. Take a picture oif the open coutryside in the real world. Then take a picture of the open countryside in SL. See if you can spot how alike they are Those qualities are also at least as present in World of Warcraft, which you have repeatedly said is a "game", "unlike" Second Life. Yes, WoW is a game and, yes, it has those similarities. But, unlike SL, it has goals to achieve, etc. and that's what makes it a game and SL not a game. It's entirely possible to play WoW without partaking in quests or doing any of the structured leveling activities - you can't "lose" by not doing any of this. You can wander around forever if you so like. And in Second Life, you can accumulate game tokens and use them to upgrade your existence, even through activities only within the world, and even through activities provided by the publisher. So where is the element that makes WoW as a whole a "game" and Second Life as a whole a "not-game"? Any idiot knows that, We'll see shortly, won't we? We already did. but it's a created world just like the Earth- a simulacrum. If Second Life is just like the Earth, what does the Earth simulate? Nothing that I know of. Didn't you notice that my comment was before your word "simulacrum"? lol. Everything that happens in Second Life technically runs on a simulator. Phil makes "furniture" for this virtual world, but there's no need for furniture in this world. There's no need for anything in the SL world. Since Second Life is "just like the Earth", doesn't this mean that "any idiot knows" there's no need for anything on Earth either? Well you seem to know it, so it must be right That's assuming that there actually isn't any need for anything in the Second Life world - now what would happen in Second Life if the simulators stopped running? Doesn't the "world" need them to be running? Before you tie yourself in too many knots for you to handle, I think I'd better help you a bit here. SL and the world are like each other. We both agree that that's what I said. That wasn't what you said earlier - you said it was " just like the earth." And just like the Earth, SL is a world. That doesn't mean in every little respect. I actually stated one respect in which they are different - one is real and the other is virtual. If I quoted you and took out or added a word that could even possibly change the meaning of what you said you'd throw a conniption fit and say that I was deliberately misquoting you. No I wouldn't. You would be misquoting me by leaving bits out, which is what you've done, but I wouldn't throw a fit. I'd merely point it out so you could see how wrong you were. The judges can go to the record and decide that semantic distinction themselves. But did I say they are identical to each other in every way? Did I? Of course not. You said they were "just like" each other. Just in this usage would mean "only", or "just alike and therefore not significantly unlike." Your own interpretation of the word just? lol. You need to show me the post whee I said it, and I'll explain that part of english to you Will you explain the rules of capitalization too? So I'll let you off the hook and just ignore all the little things you point out about SL being just like the Earth in that they are both worlds, that you hope will disprove what you thought I'd said Of course you'll ignore them - because if those few similarities are all that make Second Life a "world" and not a "game" then there are other applications that you yourself consider "games" that anyone could say the same thing about. Such as? It's no good saying these things without anything to back them up. If someone says that this is just like that, it really doesn't mean that they are the same in every way. I thought you would have realised that, but apparently not. Well, it doesn't mean it if YOU say it, apparently. Your definitions are notoriously fluid. "Furniture" exists in Second Life only as a simulation of real-world furniture. The word "play" is often used for running simulations. Quite possibly. You could even say that LL plays SL when they run the simulation - like playing a film or video. What you can't accurately say is the user, such as you and me, plays it. Make make use of the simulation that LL is playing, but we ourselves don't play it. The server simulation - the only thing that happens on LL hardware - has no graphics or sound. We see graphics and sound on our computers. If we're not "playing" anything, where is that coming from? Does it matter where it comes from? Does it have any relevance to this discussion? Yes, because you just said that a simulation could be played, and that Second Life is a simulation, but we're not playing it; only Linden Lab is. If our computers are doing as much work as Linden Labs when we access the simulation (and they are) then your argument fails. Au contraire. Just because a simulation can be played doesn't mean that all simulations, therefore, can be played. Try again But you said your ownself that Second Life COULD be played, about an inch up, depending on monitor size. Now why should we believe that the portion of the simulation that is Second Life run on the Linden Lab servers IS being "played" and the portion of the simulation run by the viewers of connected users ISN'T? Perhaps you are trying to show why SL is not like the Earth in that respect. Is that it? If that's it, then you need to go back and read what I actually said, and not argue about something that I certainly didn't say. In case it's still unclear to you, I'll refresh your memory. I said that SL and the earch are alike, or words to that effect. What I didn't say is that they are alike in every detailed respect. You're tying yourself up in knots There's a lot of that going around. Then stop doing it. Incidentally, simulations can be considered games - when the military simulates a hypothetical military campaign it's called "wargaming" even though it's done for literally life-and-death reasons of strategic planning. Wargames ARE games. They are done for the reason you stated but they are games. And they are not simulations. Why not? Don't they simulate a battle? They are models - like lead soldiers Why isn't a model a simulation? Doesn't it simulate something else? Not really, no. The pieces are like chess or draughts pieces in that they are moved by the participants (players) to try and win. They are games. Bigger than chess and draughts, but games none the less. If you want call them simulations, you can, but they are no more simulations than a map is a simulation. You can dig your hole even deeper and call a map a simulation if you like lol. Dictionary definition that would apply: "Simulation - the representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system through the use of another system, especially a computer program designed for the purpose." That's exactly what maps, models and Second Life do. But it doesn't say that using them is playing them But some simulations ARE games, and we play them. We've established that the word "play" is used for many actions, including actions that are extremely similar to the act of interacting with Second Life. We have established that the word 'play' is used for a number of actions, and also similar things to SL, such as WoW (because it's a game). Which also has all the qualities of a world that you cite Second Life having, no I didn't. Saying something is like something does not mean that it has " all the qualities" of it. Then tell us the qualities WoW has that Second Life doesn't. I already pointed out that goals are present but optional in both. For instance, you are like me. You have some of the same qualities - 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. - but we don't have all the same qualities, but I like to see a master of squirming in action, so do continue Your monitor must be very reflective. despite WoW being a "game" and Second Life being "not a game". Why would the word "play" not be used? Because it's not a game. It's also not a musical instrument, a film/video, a record (music), etc. etc. Having said that, you can use whatever verb you like, but don't be surprised if/when people correct you on it Right now, the only one still arguing that is you. That's because I'm the only one who is enjoying arguing the toss with you, even though we all know that you are enjoying writing silly stuff that you know doesn't hold up, just for the sake of it It seems to be a popular hobby around here. You should know lol. You really are arguing just for the sake of, aren't you? Any idiot knows that. True.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Pamela, I am not aware of any evidence supporting the existence of God, and I don't think it's possible to prove the non-existance of anything (though there are some who claim it can be done). There is more than one concept that is described by the word God and we need to know what one you're talking about. You can say, "I am not aware of any evidence supporting the existence of Peter Pan" and be on firm ground if you're only referring to an actual ageless boy who flies through a window, but someone standing in a bookstore, grocery store peanut butter aisle or New England bus station can show you abundant evidence as to the existence of other uses of the name "Peter Pan."

Phil Deakins wrote: I'm in green Theresa Tennyson wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I'm in red. I'm in blue. Theresa Tennyson wrote: Freya Mokusei wrote: Nalytha wrote: Even if it's not a game, exactly what is wrong with the word play? It's been pointed out that that word is very versatile. I play music. I play movies. I play Second Life. But do you play Facebook? Play Google, or eBay? Can you play email, or play WhatsApp? What is it about Second Life that makes you think that you play it? The only other online services that people 'play' are (looking at Google results) gambling, sports or gaming related. Seems likely that 'play' is associated therefore with online gaming services. Think verb usage is important, and probably part of what leads to the cloudiness in making this determination. Non-technical types often make this mistake and, because they aren't corrected on the terminology, the misinformation spreads. Has always been the double-edged sword in SL - technical knowledge is low across the userbase as a whole. (Not that I think this misinformation really matters. People have been getting it wrong for a long time, and it hasn't mattered.) Facebook, Google, and eBay aren't simulations of anything. Wow! You got something right. Very well done! Phil maintains that is a world, "just like Earth" which is what it is. How and why is it just like the earth? If you haven't noticed that they both have land and water surfaces, then I don't know what I can say, except repeat what I've said before; i.e. they are both worlds and are like each other. One is real and the other is virtual. Let's try it this way. Take a picture oif the open coutryside in the real world. Then take a picture of the open countryside in SL. See if you can spot how alike they are Those qualities are also at least as present in World of Warcraft, which you have repeatedly said is a "game", "unlike" Second Life. Any idiot knows that, We'll see shortly, won't we? We already did. but it's a created world just like the Earth- a simulacrum. If Second Life is just like the Earth, what does the Earth simulate? Nothing that I know of. Didn't you notice that my comment was before your word "simulacrum"? lol. Everything that happens in Second Life technically runs on a simulator. Phil makes "furniture" for this virtual world, but there's no need for furniture in this world. There's no need for anything in the SL world. Since Second Life is "just like the Earth", doesn't this mean that "any idiot knows" there's no need for anything on Earth either? Well you seem to know it, so it must be right That's assuming that there actually isn't any need for anything in the Second Life world - now what would happen in Second Life if the simulators stopped running? Doesn't the "world" need them to be running? Before you tie yourself in too many knots for you to handle, I think I'd better help you a bit here. SL and the world are like each other. We both agree that that's what I said. That wasn't what you said earlier - you said it was " just like the earth." If I quoted you and took out or added a word that could even possibly change the meaning of what you said you'd throw a conniption fit and say that I was deliberately misquoting you. But did I say they are identical to each other in every way? Did I? Of course not. You said they were "just like" each other. Just in this usage would mean "only", or "just alike and therefore not significantly unlike." So I'll let you off the hook and just ignore all the little things you point out about SL being just like the Earth in that they are both worlds, that you hope will disprove what you thought I'd said Of course you'll ignore them - because if those few similarities are all that make Second Life a "world" and not a "game" then there are other applications that you yourself consider "games" that anyone could say the same thing about. "Furniture" exists in Second Life only as a simulation of real-world furniture. The word "play" is often used for running simulations. Quite possibly. You could even say that LL plays SL when they run the simulation - like playing a film or video. What you can't accurately say is the user, such as you and me, plays it. Make make use of the simulation that LL is playing, but we ourselves don't play it. The server simulation - the only thing that happens on LL hardware - has no graphics or sound. We see graphics and sound on our computers. If we're not "playing" anything, where is that coming from? Does it matter where it comes from? Does it have any relevance to this discussion? Yes, because you just said that a simulation could be played, and that Second Life is a simulation, but we're not playing it; only Linden Lab is. If our computers are doing as much work as Linden Labs when we access the simulation (and they are) then your argument fails. Perhaps you are trying to show why SL is not like the Earth in that respect. Is that it? If that's it, then you need to go back and read what I actually said, and not argue about something that I certainly didn't say. In case it's still unclear to you, I'll refresh your memory. I said that SL and the earch are alike, or words to that effect. What I didn't say is that they are alike in every detailed respect. You're tying yourself up in knots There's a lot of that going around. Then stop doing it. Incidentally, simulations can be considered games - when the military simulates a hypothetical military campaign it's called "wargaming" even though it's done for literally life-and-death reasons of strategic planning. Wargames ARE games. They are done for the reason you stated but they are games. And they are not simulations. Why not? Don't they simulate a battle? They are models - like lead soldiers Why isn't a model a simulation? Doesn't it simulate something else? Not really, no. The pieces are like chess or draughts pieces in that they are moved by the participants (players) to try and win. They are games. Bigger than chess and draughts, but games none the less. If you want call them simulations, you can, but they are no more simulations than a map is a simulation. You can dig your hole even deeper and call a map a simulation if you like lol. Dictionary definition that would apply: "Simulation - the representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system through the use of another system, especially a computer program designed for the purpose." That's exactly what maps, models and Second Life do. We've established that the word "play" is used for many actions, including actions that are extremely similar to the act of interacting with Second Life. We have established that the word 'play' is used for a number of actions, and also similar things to SL, such as WoW (because it's a game). Which also has all the qualities of a world that you cite Second Life having, despite WoW being a "game" and Second Life being "not a game". Why would the word "play" not be used? Because it's not a game. It's also not a musical instrument, a film/video, a record (music), etc. etc. Having said that, you can use whatever verb you like, but don't be surprised if/when people correct you on it Right now, the only one still arguing that is you. That's because I'm the only one who is enjoying arguing the toss with you, even though we all know that you are enjoying writing silly stuff that you know doesn't hold up, just for the sake of it It seems to be a popular hobby around here. You really are arguing just for the sake of, aren't you? Any idiot knows that. True.

Phil Deakins wrote: I'm in red. I'm in blue. Theresa Tennyson wrote: Freya Mokusei wrote: Nalytha wrote: Even if it's not a game, exactly what is wrong with the word play? It's been pointed out that that word is very versatile. I play music. I play movies. I play Second Life. But do you play Facebook? Play Google, or eBay? Can you play email, or play WhatsApp? What is it about Second Life that makes you think that you play it? The only other online services that people 'play' are (looking at Google results) gambling, sports or gaming related. Seems likely that 'play' is associated therefore with online gaming services. Think verb usage is important, and probably part of what leads to the cloudiness in making this determination. Non-technical types often make this mistake and, because they aren't corrected on the terminology, the misinformation spreads. Has always been the double-edged sword in SL - technical knowledge is low across the userbase as a whole. (Not that I think this misinformation really matters. People have been getting it wrong for a long time, and it hasn't mattered.) Facebook, Google, and eBay aren't simulations of anything. Wow! You got something right. Very well done! Phil maintains that is a world, "just like Earth" which is what it is. How and why is it just like the earth? Any idiot knows that, We'll see shortly, won't we? but it's a created world just like the Earth- a simulacrum. If Second Life is just like the Earth, what does the Earth simulate? Everything that happens in Second Life technically runs on a simulator. Phil makes "furniture" for this virtual world, but there's no need for furniture in this world. There's no need for anything in the SL world. Since Second Life is "just like the Earth", doesn't this mean that "any idiot knows" there's no need for anything on Earth either? That's assuming that there actually isn't any need for anything in the Second Life world - now what would happen in Second Life if the simulators stopped running? Doesn't the "world" need them to be running? "Furniture" exists in Second Life only as a simulation of real-world furniture. The word "play" is often used for running simulations. Quite possibly. You could even say that LL plays SL when they run the simulation - like playing a film or video. What you can't accurately say is the user, such as you and me, plays it. Make make use of the simulation that LL is playing, but we ourselves don't play it. The server simulation - the only thing that happens on LL hardware - has no graphics or sound. We see graphics and sound on our computers. If we're not "playing" anything, where is that coming from? You're tying yourself up in knots There's a lot of that going around. Incidentally, simulations can be considered games - when the military simulates a hypothetical military campaign it's called "wargaming" even though it's done for literally life-and-death reasons of strategic planning. Wargames ARE games. They are done for the reason you stated but they are games. And they are not simulations. Why not? Don't they simulate a battle? They are models - like lead soldiers Why isn't a model a simulation? Doesn't it simulate something else? We've established that the word "play" is used for many actions, including actions that are extremely similar to the act of interacting with Second Life. We have established that the word 'play' is used for a number of actions, and also similar things to SL, such as WoW (because it's a game). Why would the word "play" not be used? Because it's not a game. It's also not a musical instrument, a film/video, a record (music), etc. etc. Having said that, you can use whatever verb you like, but don't be surprised if/when people correct you on it Right now, the only one still arguing that is you. You really are arguing just for the sake of, aren't you? Any idiot knows that.

Phil Deakins wrote: Theresa Tennyson wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Nalytha wrote: I actually put forth what my opinion the "objective" of Second Life is and how the players carry out that role. What was the objective - because there isn't one. Perhaps you invented an objective for yourself. We can all do that, but it doesn't make SL a game, except personally. If it is a game personally, how can it not be "not a game"? Are you just trying to wind me up? If you're not, then read again because you completely missed it, and I've no intention of explaining it to you. It's perfectly simple and straight forward english. Everything I've seen suggests you're self-winding. You just need to be jogged occasionally.

Freya Mokusei wrote: Theresa Tennyson wrote: The word "play" is often used for running simulations. Can accept this, thanks. Snipped some more for brevity, but I get your drift. I did notice my Google stats dropped out of your post (my fault, am terrible for edits). A bit more to add, then:- For Second Life it was 30K FOR, 26K AGAINST usage of "play" vs "use". For GTA 5 (an obvious game) it's 397K FOR, 23K AGAINST usage of "play" vs "use". For ARMA 2 (a simulator/game) it's 60K FOR, 3K AGAINST usage of "play" vs "use". For Microsoft Train Simulator (a simulator with optional game elements) it's 159K FOR, 4K AGAINST usage of "play" vs "use". Second Life is clearly more ambiguous than any of the others. Is there a way to explain this? Presumably, other than polarisation of terms. Can agree that some consider it as a game, but I'm afraid technical knowledge still very much could be a deciding factor in verb usage. It would be interesting if any other service (simulator or not) showed similar results, but even the most simulator-y game I can think of seems to slide much further into "play" territory than SL does. There's a TV show in the United States called Bob's Burgers. One of the characters is a girl in her young teens and, like many girls in their early teens, is a horse lover. She described horses as "the most magical of non-magical animals." If we consider Second Life to be a game I'd call it "the most non-gamelike of games", and if it is seen as a part of some other non-game application category I'd call it "the most gamelike of [whatever.]" From what I've heard, it used to be quite a bit more "game-like" and gradually evolved in another direction, but there's still enough left-over conventions (the avatar that always has to be there, the single point of entry, the single overall environment that all users are part of, etc.) that I don't see how it can be authoritatively described as Not A Game.

Freya Mokusei wrote: Nalytha wrote: I actually think that the verb play has, over time, become associated with various media consumption. Second Life is media. Perhaps, though that strikes me as a sad way to look at it. To me, Second Life is interactive and collaborative and not consumptive - most media (even modern media, sadly) is being presented to an audience, as is. That's probably a semantic game for another day however. So I'll rephrase, do you play Netflix or do you play TV? Perhaps you play Amazon Prime. No, sorry, still not adequate. People select verbs based on a range of factors, and the only decision-making that seems to make sense when combining "play" and "Second Life" is a low level of understanding and/or participation (which may be the 'average', but average is not 'good' nor 'accurate') P.S.:- Nalytha wrote: Is it soda or pop? It's neither, but instead "fizzy". I'm not Ameriquaine (who seem to prefer these two options), but instead a Londoner transplanted into the cold hard Norf. In the Netherlands, a colorless lemon-lime flavored carbonated beverage is generically listed on menus as an "up", as a back-formation from "7-Up."

Freya Mokusei wrote: Nalytha wrote: Even if it's not a game, exactly what is wrong with the word play? It's been pointed out that that word is very versatile. I play music. I play movies. I play Second Life. But do you play Facebook? Play Google, or eBay? Can you play email, or play WhatsApp? What is it about Second Life that makes you think that you play it? The only other online services that people 'play' are (looking at Google results) gambling, sports or gaming related. Seems likely that 'play' is associated therefore with online gaming services. Think verb usage is important, and probably part of what leads to the cloudiness in making this determination. Non-technical types often make this mistake and, because they aren't corrected on the terminology, the misinformation spreads. Has always been the double-edged sword in SL - technical knowledge is low across the userbase as a whole. (Not that I think this misinformation really matters. People have been getting it wrong for a long time, and it hasn't mattered.) Facebook, Google, and eBay aren't simulations of anything. Phil maintains that is a world, "just like Earth", but it's a created world - a simulacrum. Everything that happens in Second Life technically runs on a simulator. Phil makes "furniture" for this virtual world, but there's no need for furniture in this world. "Furniture" exists in Second Life only as a simulation of real-world furniture. The word "play" is often used for running simulations. Incidentally, simulations can be considered games - when the military simulates a hypothetical military campaign it's called "wargaming" even though it's done for literally life-and-death reasons of strategic planning. We've established that the word "play" is used for many actions, including actions that are extremely similar to the act of interacting with Second Life. Why would the word "play" not be used?

Phil Deakins wrote: Nalytha wrote: I actually put forth what my opinion the "objective" of Second Life is and how the players carry out that role. What was the objective - because there isn't one. Perhaps you invented an objective for yourself. We can all do that, but it doesn't make SL a game, except personally. If it is a game personally, how can it not be "not a game"?

Phil Deakins wrote: Theresa. You can waffle as much as you like but, no matter how much waffle (and squirmming around obscure thinking) Second Life is not, and never has been, a game. I accept that some people think of it as a game, and they are more than welcome to think that. I've said that numerous times over the years. And yet nobody has ever posted how you play it. I.e. what are the rules, aims, objectives, etc. etc. etc. The best that anyone has ever been able to do is fiddle around with the meaning of the word 'game', and you are no different. Heck, a few posts back you even suggested that it's a game because we can invent new meanings for words lol. In which case, I declare that Second Life is, in fact, a coffin, and you can't deny it. It makes as much sense as your waffling Incidentally, when I'm at the keyboard and in SL, I'm living in SL, in my brain and through my avatar. I'm only playing a game in SL when I'm actually playing a game. You need to sit back, take a deep breath, preferably with a cup of tea, and think Did the post you're replying to say that it was a game? No, simply that with whatever Second Life works, the appropriate verb for interaction with it would be "play." However, I agree with you that it is a coffin, since you "live" there, but only part of the time, and when you're not living you're dead - that's how "living" works - and where else would you store the dead?

Phil Deakins wrote: Theresa Tennyson wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: You stated the 3 meanings of the word 'play', and none of them fit SL. SL isn't a musical instrument or a game. You may be tempted to suggest that playing a part (acting, roleplaying) is playing SL, but you'd be wrong to suggest that. Actors play a part on a stage or similar. Roleplayers roleplay wherever it's suitable, such as in SL. A stage isn't a game, or musical intrument, and actors/roleplayers play ON a stage or wherever. The stage or wherever is not the game. They don't play the stage. They play the role. If you're suggesting the we can all invent new uses for words, well.... Of course we can invent new uses for words - that's called "language." When St. Peter's in Rome was built an onlooker described it as "awful" and "artificial" - he meant that it filled him with awe and it showed great artifice. Obviously words have changed meanings since then. (Second request) So, what is the appropriate word for the act of manipulating the platform that is Second Life? Verb me, Philly boy... Lol. So you really did mean that. I rest my case The word I would use to answer your "second request" is.... live. When I'm in SL, I'm living in SL. I do all sorts of stuff but a generic word would be 'live'. Or to put it another way, the word to describe "the act of manipulating the platform that is Second Life" is the same one you would use to describe the act of manipulatring the platforn that is the world (Earth). It's what we all do, 24/7 in the world. Live Second Life exists as data on a server farm in Arizona. As you, the human typing your posts, aren't actually inside the servers (because that would create a huge mess and not be good for either the server or you) you're manipulating the world from afar. And this world is imperceptable until you make a positive act to temporarily turn the data into human-perceptable sensory information - in this case, sight and sound (and only sight and sound - this world only has 40% of the sensory options of the real one.) Virtual worlds are newish, of course, so a dedicated verb doesn't exist for them. However, there is a verb already that is used for when we cause encoded sight and sound data (i.e. a video file) to be released into perceptable form. That verb is "play." To answer your next post, it's certainly possible to manipulate and change an audio or video recording instead of playing it back verbatim, just as it's possible to manipulate the data in Second Life - I've always felt Steve Miller's album Abracadabra is a much stronger piece played at 45 rpm instead of 33 rpm.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: If Second LIfe is only a platform then why do the users have to do things that would be utterly idiotic for a simple creativity program? Woah woah woah.. Hold up there. I never said it was a creativity platform. I said it was a platform. If you want to create, cool. If not, also cool. Do what you like. Remember the old tag line, "Your world, Your imagination"? You can do whatsoever you like IN SL.. That is an important word, in. You aren't playing CoD, WoW or EverQuest. You are interacting or maybe not interacting with people from around the globe in a virtual environment. It is the first and most fleshed out virtual world there is. To label it simply a "game" is sad. Before you can do anything in Second Life you need to create an account, rezz out as an avatar and then drag that avatar around when you're doing completely non-avatar-related things. You can't even upload a texture without having an avatar clunking around a simulator. Why, if it's "only a platform"? Simple answer, because that's how LL designed it. They decided that each user should have something to represent them in the platform world. I would be willing to bet the very very first designers just had a ball or cube to represent them. The avatar is the digital representation of your unique UUiD. It can be anything.. I have seen cubes. Simple cubes, just sitting in a sandbox building a house. And why does your UUID need a digital representation at all? They probably designed it that way because it was designed as a game. In the initial version of LindenWorld, you terraformed by throwing grenades. The original avatars, far from being spheres or cubes, were complete humanoids made of prims and had helmets, visors and jetpacks for flying. http://secondlife.wikia.com/wiki/Primitar In the 2003-2005 era there was much more of an explicit "game-ness." You were paid directly by Linden Lab for the "dwell" (old name for traffic) on your region. The same basic architecture is still used. Over time it became less explicitly "game-like" but there are still elements of game-ness that wouldn't be there if it wasn't originally designed as something almost everyone would accept as a game. One grain of sand isn't a heap; a million grains of sand in a pile is a heap. It's effectively impossible to find a point that X grains of sand constitutes a heap and x-1 grains of sand doesn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:  Bringing this up once again is beating a dead horse. Gamers will never convince non gamers that SL is a game and non gamers will never convince gamers that it isn't. To me it's simple. SL is a virtual world where you can play games, BUT YOU DON"T ALWAYS. What I and many of us do in the virtual world is not a game. For those that say we all play characters, I disagree. I am my RL self in SL and my avatar is just that, a representation of myself in world. Those of us like myself don't 'play' SL. Why do you have a representation of yourself in a virtual world?

CassieMaia wrote: Well, instead of thinking of it as ruining your explorations, consider yourself as a true explorer, mapping out the passable areas of travel across a new territory. :matte-motes-sunglasses-1: I think one way to irritate people who own land, and currently allow access, is to act as if you have some type of entitlement to travel over their parcels. Have some appreciation for all the parcels you *can* travel over/through. One thing I've thought of would be a kind of transponder system where security orbs would ping out their locations at intervals for use by a receiver in the vehicle so that the vehicle could avoid the area altogether instead of the vehicle blundering into the secure area.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Theresa Tennyson wrote: I assume when you log out - i.e. stop manipulating the world - you die, and are reborn when logging in. Very Hindu, this world.... Could SL's declining concurrency mean that some people are discovering that they die (maybe a li'l) when they log in? ;-). There was a regular poster in the technical section of the forums who talked about "massive losses of concurrency since [this, that, the other thing]" so often that I figured according to her reasoning that concurrency in Second Life had long ago become negative, meaning that there were humans in the real world being controlled by their avatars. Which would explain a lot with some people...

Phil Deakins wrote: Theresa Tennyson wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: You stated the 3 meanings of the word 'play', and none of them fit SL. SL isn't a musical instrument or a game. You may be tempted to suggest that playing a part (acting, roleplaying) is playing SL, but you'd be wrong to suggest that. Actors play a part on a stage or similar. Roleplayers roleplay wherever it's suitable, such as in SL. A stage isn't a game, or musical intrument, and actors/roleplayers play ON a stage or wherever. The stage or wherever is not the game. They don't play the stage. They play the role. If you're suggesting the we can all invent new uses for words, well.... Of course we can invent new uses for words - that's called "language." When St. Peter's in Rome was built an onlooker described it as "awful" and "artificial" - he meant that it filled him with awe and it showed great artifice. Obviously words have changed meanings since then. (Second request) So, what is the appropriate word for the act of manipulating the platform that is Second Life? Verb me, Philly boy... Lol. So you really did mean that. I rest my case The word I would use to answer your "second request" is.... live. When I'm in SL, I'm living in SL. I do all sorts of stuff but a generic word would be 'live'. Or to put it another way, the word to describe "the act of manipulating the platform that is Second Life" is the same one you would use to describe the act of manipulatring the platforn that is the world (Earth). It's what we all do, 24/7 in the world. Live Because that's not inventing a new use for a word, is it? Well, we already established that's perfectly appropriate. I assume when you log out - i.e. stop manipulating the world - you die, and are reborn when logging in. Very Hindu, this world....

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Nalytha wrote: 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. The bolded statement is inherently false. Second Life in and of itself is ONLY a platform. The Sims inside the platform are where the various activities take place. Simply because there are some RP sims does not make SL as a whole a "game." SL as a whole is nothing more than a virtual world platform. Plain and simple. Put it this way.. i play D&D every Saturday night in my living room. Does that make my living room a game room? Perhaps on Saturday nights it is, but that does not make my house a game room. Second Life is the Earth, the Sim is my house and my RP parcel is D&D around the table on Saturday nights. Does that make more sense? If Second LIfe is only a platform then why do the users have to do things that would be utterly idiotic for a simple creativity program? Before you can do anything in Second Life you need to create an account, rezz out as an avatar and then drag that avatar around when you're doing completely non-avatar-related things. You can't even upload a texture without having an avatar clunking around a simulator. Why, if it's "only a platform"?

Phil Deakins wrote: You stated the 3 meanings of the word 'play', and none of them fit SL. SL isn't a musical instrument or a game. You may be tempted to suggest that playing a part (acting, roleplaying) is playing SL, but you'd be wrong to suggest that. Actors play a part on a stage or similar. Roleplayers roleplay wherever it's suitable, such as in SL. A stage isn't a game, or musical intrument, and actors/roleplayers play ON a stage or wherever. The stage or wherever is not the game. They don't play the stage. They play the role. If you're suggesting the we can all invent new uses for words, well.... Of course we can invent new uses for words - that's called "language." When St. Peter's in Rome was built an onlooker described it as "awful" and "artificial" - he meant that it filled him with awe and it showed great artifice. Obviously words have changed meanings since then. (Second request) So, what is the appropriate word for the act of manipulating the platform that is Second Life? Verb me, Philly boy...

Phil Deakins wrote: Nalytha wrote: For me, both of these statements are true: 1. Second Life is a Virtual World. 2. I play Second Life. You believe them both to be true, but #2 is definitely untrue. Perhaps you think it's true because of your slightly flawed understanding of english. "Play" is a verb. It's used to denote interacting with games, but also interacting with musical instruments and portraying a role onstage, neither of which are typically considered games. It's obviously a versatile word. What basis do you have for saying this particular verb isn't appropriate for doing whatever you do in Second Life, and what, then, would be the appropriate verb to denote "virtual-world-ing"?

Luxen wrote: Because if you explain at someone what is Pac-mac and your answer is it's a game : it's enough for him to understand. But to explain at someone that Secondlife is just a game: It's not enough to understand all the complexity that can be a virtual world as Secondlife. So the word "Game" is just too restrictive and Secondlife cannot be considered as just a "Game" for this reason. If it was the question of this Topic. Dungeons and Dragons is extremely complex. It developed over time with the input of many people, including those playing it. Although it has a framework of rules those playing it are able to make up additional rules - "Dungeon Masters" need to determine what happens in unexpected situations on the fly. Most interestingly, it doesn't have pre-set goals. There wasn't even a "sample dungeon"/scenario provided until the second supplement to the original rules. One person has the role of referee/scenario director and he or she generally controls the chain of events, but they need the consent of the rest of the players or else everyone else will just find something better to do with their evenings. However, despite this lack of hard goals, if you asked almost everyone (except for one Phil Deakins, who rightly detected a trap) what Dungeons and Dragons - the entire environment, framework and phenomenon - was, they'd call it "a game", perhaps even "just a game." How is Second Life any different?

Pamela Galli wrote: Rhonda Huntress wrote: Th3Unkn0wn wrote: YES ITS A GAME YOU PLAY IT ON YOUR COMPUTER DON'T YOU JUST LIKE WARFACE L4D2 ANY OF THOSE GAMES Just like Word or Outlook or Excel or Photoshop or Skype or SQL Server or Quicken or Internet Explorer or Visuall C# or Python or Google or AutoCAD or Calibre or Mathmatica or Blender or Notepad or Rosetta Stone or Hyperterm or Oracle or Foxit or Snagit or RSA ID or even DOS 3_point_freakin'_4 What's your point? I can create games you can play in Excel; does that make Excel a game? Second Life is a tool. You can create games with it. You can poly games with it. I have heard quite a few compelling arguments on the "it is a game" side. Not one of them have ever used CapsLock. Just saying. Exactly what I thought. SL is a world, a platform, a medium, a tool, not unlike the other tools you mentioned (and add Legos to the list). You can make all kinds of things with and out of it, including games, but it is certainly not itself a game. The all caps claim seems to sum up the argument that SL is a "game" -- after all it is on a computer, and so are computer games, so SL must be one. The computer programs cited above were written because someone decided they'd be the most efficient way of doing something of practical value. Even Lego was originally intended to be a simple, tidy way of building various types of model buildings. If a child decides to build a model building, Lego would be one option, as would Lincoln Logs, as would a cardboard box. It would be up to the child to decide what was the most effective way of getting the desired result. Now, if somone were to build a model out of Lego only for the sake of building it out of Lego, when there are more efficient ways of doing it, that would be edging into game territory. The goal would be, "How close to this thing can I come using only Lego?" and they'd be playing a game with Lego - Lego wouldn't become a game in itself. On the other hand, you could easily use something that's undeniably a game - say, Monopoly - to teach certain concept in a classroom setting. You'd be using Monopoly it for something of a practical value but that doesn't mean Monopoly stops being a game. The question then is, "Is Second Life the most efficient, effective/cost effective tool for doing something other than just being Second Life and being cool?" Having boxes poof out of an avatar's hands certainly isn't the most efficient way of building a digital model or programs like Maya would have avatars. Rezzing out as an avatar in some environment modeled on a server in Tucson isn't the most efficient way of having an on-line chat with someone by a long shot. Second Life is really not great at doing many of the things people use it for compared to other options. Even a 3D training application could be better done in something closer to OpenSim where you could have greater control over the simulation. People go on Second Life and tolerate the inefficiencies and rules because it's Second Life.

Luxen wrote: exactly, so yes, Pac-Man is a "just a game" and the word "Game" is enough to define it. Why?

Luxen wrote: If you want to speak about the philosophy, we can. And the life itself can be considered by some philosopher as a "Game". For the third time: I never said that is not a game, i just said that it's too restrictive to just define Secondlife as a Game when a game can to be just a game as Pacman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-Man Pac-Man has been featured prominently in a few movies; a song about Pac-Man hit #9 on the music charts in 1982. There have been and still are competitive tournaments based on it. In 1982 one was held in a baseball stadium. There have doubtless been relationships started by or built around Pac-Man. By your logic, wouldn't it be too restrictive to define Pac-Man as a "just a game" as well?