Scylla Rhiadra

Sure, but my argument isn't about relative rankings of "importance." It's about the quality (by which I mean not "value" but rather component elements) and nature of the experience. A virtual experience -- sex, or even death -- can be very intense indeed. And both very "real," as an experience, and very important. But it is not, qualitatively or categorically the same kind of experience as the real thing. That doesn't mean it's better or worse. It means it's different. Perhaps the sex you've had in SL is better than anything you've ever experienced in RL. Perhaps your SL sex life is more important to you than your RL one -- maybe because here you can express your sexuality in ways you can't in RL. None of that changes the fact that the way that you experience and respond to these two events or activities -- at a psychological, physiological, and emotional level -- is fundamentally different because one is virtual and the other is not. Again, that doesn't means "better" or "worse," or even necessarily less important (although if you're equating getting shot in a video game with being shot in RL, you should probably hone your critical thinking skills). Applying a paradigm that relates to one kind of reality to another, very different one, is like saying "when I eat an apple, I just bite in and eat the peel. So the same principle should apply to eating an orange. Right?"

Today is Canada Day and a long weekend, and traditionally a lot of city dwellers will zip up to their cottages in Muskoka or whatever more-or-less "wild" part of the country they like to spend weekends at. We've got smoke from wildfires everywhere at the moment, which is rather dampening enthusiasm for the outdoors generally, but still . . . Anyway, I don't have (or especially want) a cottage, although my family had one when I was young. I do occasionally vacation for short stretches in Western Ontario, an area which looks a lot like @Suki Blossom's region at Black Atoll, so I am having a virtual cottage long weekend there.

I think at this point we are sort of talking in circles, or past each other. To be clear, I am not saying that there isn't some kind of dynamic at work that makes people feel in some sense "compelled" to do certain things -- upgrade their avatar, for instance. Of course there is. And that's probably something that should be built into the new user experience as a "lever" to motivate at least some to progress further on the platform. What I am saying is that the Maslow model is an irrelevancy in this context (however apt or inapt it might have been in the context used by Rosedale). I am going to use one last analogy in the hope that I can make clear what I am getting at. Say someone points a gun at you in RL and is threatening to kill you. That is, literally, an existential moment, and your responses are going to be predicated on your awareness of that. This is a moment that fits at the bottom of the Maslow pyramid. Now, say someone -- maybe even an NPC -- points a gun at you in a video game, and you realize that if you're "shot" you will lose your progress to that point, and all of the items you've gathered along the way. There is something at "stake" in both cases -- in the video game, you probably don't want to start back at the last spawning point, and you don't want to lose that lovely grenade launcher you picked up before that. You don't want to be shot. But what is at stake in the first case is so vastly disproportionate to the consequences in the second case that your responses will be entirely different. Using the first as a "model" for the second just makes no sense whatsoever; they mean entirely different things, despite the fact that the second is a representation of the first, and that there are negative consequences associated with both situations. You're not "surviving" in Second Life; you are role playing survival, just as you are in a sense "role playing" sitting on a couch in your Linden home, or dancing at a club using animations. So, yeah, by all means lets talk about "incentivizing" and "motivating" new sign ups. But drop this stupid and utterly inapplicable model. It's not the Maslow hierarchy of needs you're using: it's a virtual simulacrum of it that bears the same resemblance to the original that the virtual bullet bears to a real one.

As Qie notes, they do look somewhat better in the video, under different lighting conditions. No, I didn't expect that they would be nice enough to compete with existing commercial heads. What I hoped -- and still hope -- is that they are good enough and, as importantly, easily customizable enough that new residents who don't immediately want to dive into buying expensive mesh bodies, heads, and skins can use them comfortably for a longer period without feeling that they too obviously stand out as noobs. "Lady with a dog in her basket" is not, actually, a terrible looking starter avatar, but she is immediately recognizable, and not all that easy to customize given the current ecosystem for items that work with simple system avatars. Ideally, you'll be given one of these, and almost at once be provided with enough clothing, hair, and skins (as well as guidance on how to do it) to individuate the look somewhat, so that you no longer stand out like a sore thumb everywhere you go. Then, after a couple of weeks, or a month, or two months, or whatever makes you comfortable, you can start dipping gradually into the commercial market. But I'd also hope that this levels the playing field a bit for those who don't have, or don't want to sink, a lot of RL cash into their avatar. I know a few people who still use system avis, and more who still use system avatar heads. They are still contributing members to their communities, and I'd hope this gives them more options too.

I am going to reluctantly admit that I'm a little disappointed with the look of these. The bodies look better than system avis. The heads . . . not so much. It remains, in fairness, to see what can be done with them. But I was hoping for somewhat better.

Everyone has things that they identify as "needs" that aren't really so. I "need" that book, or this new blouse. If I don't have this particular dress, I'll look shabby at the reception we're going to next week. I need this SUV because the neighbours laugh at my ancient hatchback. Etc. If I don't eat in RL, I die. If I don't sleep, I will also die. If I don't have clothes and shelter, I'll likely be arrested and/or freeze to death in the winter. These are needs, and they are the things that Maslow is talking about: having sufficient resources to avoid dying, and being able to live a safe, secure, and stable life with enough leisure (and money) to begin to branch out into other parts of human culture. The relationship between Maslow's list of "needs" and your own is like the relationship between RL sex and SL sex, or RL dancing and SL dancing, or RL clothes and SL clothes: the SL "equivalents" are representations and analogues, not actual things. If you don't succeed at RP in SL, you watch a movie or read a book instead -- in other words, you engage in another cultural activity that is higher up the pyramid, just as SL itself is.

Kids these days, eh? Back in my day, we had to walk across three regions in homemade prim shoes just to be able to afford enough to buy a box to wear on our heads! I'm unclear on the point of this response. Or the reason for your apparent "confusion" over my post. I've already said, several times, and even in the part of the post that you quote, that I quite understand that some people need and/or want "goals" and some form of gamification (leveling up, or whatever) to motivate them. And that's totally cool. I think (I'll say for about the 5th time) that it would be great to incorporate these kinds of mechanisms into the "new user experience." As optional routes to follow when getting started. Is the "optional" part the problem? You think everyone should be compelled to engage in what are perhaps, in practical terms, arbitrary and possibly pointless tasks in order to feel "motivation"? Because some of us -- quite a few of us, I suspect -- don't need to be assigned artificial goals in order to feel motivated in SL. I can see the point in tutorials in certain things, above and beyond the basic UI controls, and I'd have probably happily taken such when I started had I seen them offered. I did in fact learn how to build, and how sell things in SL, quite early on. And I didn't need to be "motivated" to do so in order to achieve some artificial benchmark set by the platform. I didn't need to be given a whiff of cheese to run through the maze: my motivation was my own. So, I'll say this again -- people are different, come from different cultural contexts, and are not always "motivated" by the same things. For those who expect and want tasks and goals, let's provide those, by all means! Great idea! Especially if they are in some way useful and beneficial to their future well-being in SL! But forcing people who don't want or need gamification to engage with the platform is the fastest way to lose another, different, and by no means insignificant demographic that also contributes positively to SL.

Again, in substance there is not much I can disagree with here -- and some of these are indeed great ideas. I get the sense that we're arguing to some degree about semantics here, but in some instances definitions are important. Things like shelter (a trial Linden Home) and clothing (learning how to shop, find freebies, etc.) are literally "needful" in RL, in that your actual survival will depend upon them to some degree. That's not the case in SL, nor should it be. I have had "homes" of many sorts in SL over the years, but a fair amount of my time I didn't have, or feel I needed, one. And it's entirely possible (although not recommended) to just continue wearing the clothes your new avatar comes supplied with. Heck, some people don't bother with clothes at all! (And some wear clothing that makes you wondered why they bothered!) So these things are "needful" only by analogy with RL; they are not actually necessary to one's survival in SL. Where I would object is if they were made to be needful here. In other words, if new residents were compelled to find shelter, or buy new clothing (including freebies) in order to continue further into the platform. That is the implication of Maslow's pyramid: that one must first obtain these bare essentials before proceeding further up the ladder. We don't need, and I don't think want, the addition of those kind of "hoops." But optional tutorials and "games" for those who want these things, or who enjoy a goal-oriented approach? Sure, absolutely! Why not? And those who completed them would undoubtedly be better equipped to master SL.

Yep, I don't really disagree with any of this. I've also suggested above that "tasks" (or, if you prefer, "goals") could be available for noobs -- things like learning basic manipulation of a prim, how to dance using animations, how to ride a bike, how to change your wardrobe, etc. They would be fun, brief, but useful -- and also, importantly, optional. I think if the definition of "gamification" is broad enough to encompass these sorts of things, it's pretty unobjectionable. But the OP's remarks are premised on a discussion of Maslow's hierarchy, and the idea that the lack of "needful" things -- the equivalent of food, shelter, clothing, etc. -- makes SL seem less "valuable" to noobs. And that's a very different model than what you've described here.

Oh totally. I also used to do hunts in my first couple of years; they were fun -- albeit, mostly because I did them with friends. I don't think I'd have done them by myself, though. But that's just me. I'm not at all against games, and I know lots of people who enjoy them. I'm by no means suggesting they are valueless: just that they don't have the same hold over everyone and that, as you say, they shouldn't be required.

I suspect not, but I'm not going to tell someone who has them popping in regularly on her property that she should just be tolerant.

Wow. Just gorgeous.

This is a really lovely story! ❤️ On two occasions that I can remember, I've had strangers snap my pic and share it with me, and I thought that was really generous of them. This is something else though! People can be . . . nice!

Olivia and Viola from Twelfth Night -- How my avatar looked today, TWICE! Bonus! As I am man, My state is desperate for my master’s love. As I am woman (now, alas the day!), What thriftless sighs shall poor Olivia breathe! I had a lot of setup for this one -- making two avis from scratch and, um, building the stage of the Globe Theatre. But it was kinda fun, and I'm reasonably pleased with the result. I think both figures look a tiny bit androgynous -- and they both look a wee bit alike ("Olivia" is almost an anagram of "Viola") without looking exactly the same. Thanks again to everyone who helped me put these looks together!

Yeah. I don't really buy the "my ban list is too small argument." Unless you are being maliciously targeted by someone, you're unlikely to find your ban list overwhelmed by individual bots, I think. There are lots of them, but not that many different ones always visiting the same place.

While I do take your point, I don't think I'd define these instances as "grinding." If you enjoy bargain hunting, it's usually because you enjoy the activity in and of itself. Similarly, there is definitely a small demographic within SL who likely get off on the idea that their avatar is being "used" for sex at AFK sites, and are probably watching it happen with enjoyment. But I think most people who bargain hunt in RL and SL are doing so because they need to. I recognize that you said "Some people," and I think you've provided a useful corrective to my admittedly reductive characterization of these activities, but I'd still maintain that most people, given an easy and painless choice between struggling with free mesh body "A," or using a Maitreya, Legacy, Reborn, or some other well supported and relatively easy-to-use body, are going to go with the latter. The "challenge" can be a factor, definitely, and some people who can afford a Maitreya are going to want to play with a freebie for the fun of it . . . but I think it's, if not a rarity, certainly not the usual case. Not their RL survival needs, likely, but quite possibly their SL enjoyment. Someone camping for Lindens wasn't doing so with the intention of cashing them out into RL money: they wanted the cash to enhance their SL experience. I went for a couple of years at least in SL before ever actually putting RL money into the platform. Initially, I funded myself by playing trivia at a place that gave me L$2 for every correct answer (assuming I was the first to answer it . . . and I usually was). I could make anywhere from 20 to about 80 Lindens an hour doing it. What made it bearable was that 1) there were other people there with whom I was socializing, and who became friends, and 2) answering trivia itself was enjoyable. But once I started to make money from my SL business, I stopped doing that, because I no longer need to. I don't entirely disagree with much of this, but my own SL isn't driven by competition. I don't need to be "the most famous" or valued photographer in SL to enjoy producing photographs. It's nice that I've achieved the recognition and success that I have, but the value of those isn't conferred by comparison with others. There are plenty of SL photographers who are more famous, more highly regarded, and often just better than me. I don't resent them, I don't want to "unseat" them. I respect them for what they've achieved. I don't think, to be honest, that any of my friends in SL are really much interested in this either. In SL, most scarcity is at some level illusory, but it is also underpinned by real RL factors: time, money, ability, and the necessity of keeping a platform that exists in the context of a capitalist system afloat. Someone's gotta pay for those servers, and at root, that's the source of nearly all "scarcity" in SL. I don't think SL ever can be entirely without scarcity of some sort or another. But we can selectively target certain things to make them "less scarce" because their general availability benefits the individual, the community, and the platform in ways that ultimately do produce value, i.e., money, for individual creative types, as well as LL itself. In other words, we can reframe this in ways that make "sense" in the context of capitalism. If a grocery store reduces the "scarcity" of an item by reducing the price for a sale, they are doing so because it will ultimately generate more revenue for them. The same can be said of reducing scarcity for some things in SL: if it assists with engagement, enjoyment, and retention, then it it benefits LL, and the creators here, in entirely quantifiable ways.

Interesting point. Where the Estate-level bot banning tool can prevent them from arriving, is this function only able to boot them after they land? Surely there are ways to script it to prevent their arrival? (And by "they," I of course mean only registered agents.) If you're running a bot operation, and you discover that your bots keep getting booted from a particular parcel, you're surely going to respond by finding a way to make them spawn elsewhere, rather than going through the process of creating endless numbers of new accounts, just so that you override that particular parcel owner's obvious objections to bots? The scenario you evoke here, of a bot farmer responding to his bots being booted by overwhelming the landowner with a small army of bots is surely a little . . . silly? I don't disagree. We wouldn't be here now if LL had 1) worked to actually enforce its policies, esp. around traffic bots, and 2) foreseen the sorts of issues that were raised by BB and the proliferation of bots, and put in place rules and mechanisms for dealing with it in the first place. I am skeptical that this is going to produce vigilantes, as you put it. But prevention is always better than a cure.

I did, actually, have part of my "plan of action" mapped out because I was introduced to SL by people who wanted me to engage with particular communities and activities. But I accept that my experience was not "usual" in that sense. Again, there is gamification, and gamification. "Learn how to create a prim and manipulate it in simple ways" would be, for most people, a fun, or at least relatively harmless hoop to jump through -- and a useful one too. "Learn how to dance!" similarly. "Add 2 people to your friends list!" might be more problematic, but still not a bad thing. "Spend 3 hours searching this forest for glowy jewels that confer 'points'" on the other hand would have had me logging out after 5 minutes. I didn't say they were a tiny demographic: I think I used the words "lots." And it would be good to cater to them. But not only to them. And there are games . . . and games. You're employing a single paradigm here, which is something like WoW. Most people who "game" aren't actually playing survival-type games, and the leveling up or goal-oriented aspect is often nebulous or actually absent. Someone playing Temple Run on their phone isn't really all that interested in their "level": the point of achievement is to get to new levels with new and more challenging content. Someone playing solitaire or Candy Crush Saga probably doesn't care at all that there is no "goal" beyond trying to win a single game. Making generalizations about human behaviour on the basis of one particular demographic, and an ill-defined one at that, is a mistake. SL needs the flexibility to cater to those who, like you, might have preferred goals and challenges, and those who, like me, just wanted free form play and the ability to explore and socialize.

But it can, in fact, allow one to determine if those 30 avatars hanging out on a sky platform above a club are registered or not. If they are registered, they don't matter; if they are unregistered, they are likely gaming traffic, and can be ARed as such, whether they are automated bots or not. Yep. Agreed. And to reiterate something I've had to say over and over since the whole BB thing came up: I am not "anti-bot." I don't think most people are. Bots DO provide all sorts of useful services for the individuals employing them, and for those looking for information about the grid as a whole. I myself occasionally check out the BonnieBots site for information. The issue is, as Paul said above, about certain bot "behaviours"; about their misuse, in fact. I suspect a better solution to the mainland issue of bots swarming particular parcels might have been better handled by restricting where bots can spawn or land. But of course even that would only impact on registered scripted agents. And your quote from Blizzard about endless war more or less echoes something I've actually already said: there is no ultimate solution to any of this. Code is not a god-like force that can change human behaviours with the stroke of a pen (or refresh of a script).

Yes, but not just an exodus of existing residents; it would also impact on recruitment. To repeating something I've already said, had I been forced to jump through all sorts of hoops before I could engage with the parts of SL that interested me, I wouldn't have made it past the first day or two. I do acknowledge that there are people, lots of them, who do want some form of gamification, leveling up, goals, or however we want to express this. There is value conferred by cost and effort for many. Gamers are gamers for a reason: they like these mechanisms, and respond positively to them. And we know that there are people who subscribe to this model who are turned off SL because it doesn't have them. So . . . this is why it might actually be a good idea to offer a choice of either stream to people. My main concern, again, is that the gamification not result in unwanted behaviours.

Thank you, Persephone: this expresses something that had occurred to me, but that I didn't have the brain cells or energy to articulate properly, or as well as you have. The point being that the "survival" aspects of SL are present, but not actually on the grid. They are preconditions to be here at all.

Thank you: if true, then that does mean there is no simple way to detect unregistered bots. Well, what we want really is to get all of those unregistered bots registered, if only so that they can't be used to game traffic. And at the same time, I'll point out again that some people, quite understandably, don't want an endless stream of bots, registered or unregistered, popping on to their lands. It's not ideological: it's about privacy and general annoyance.

I may be misreading, but Prok is saying that he only reported the 4th bot, who did not get flagged as a registered agent.

Ack, you're right. I keep forgetting this! Thank you Phil.

Yes, although they aren't permitted to be there for the purposes of traffic even if they are registered agents.