Scylla Rhiadra

Awwwwwwwwww ❤️

Hey, which reminds me. How did your ARs of the posts opposing you in that other thread go? The reports you said you were going to lodge us against us?

I was being somewhat rhetorical of course. I know a great many Americans who are as horrified by the US cultural attitude to guns as I am. And a number of them are obviously in this thread.

I wonder if the Americans in this thread have any idea how utterly bizarre this suggestion sounds to the rest of us.

There's no one-size-fits-all answer here, Love. There are too many variables. Options in that sort of a situation are a good thing.

I don't disagree. While I don't want to seem to be equating the kinds of cases we're talking about, one would always counsel a victim of domestic abuse to get out of the situation. And yes, that can actually take more strength and resolve that "sticking it out." Incommensurate example, I know, but the principle still holds.

Excellent advice. Submitted prematurely. I wanted to highlight the bolded part. If the person is merely annoying, block them by all means. If they are actually destructive, then it's much better, if you can manage it, to monitor what they are up to, rather than closing your eyes and humming loudly to yourself while pretending it isn't happening. Which is essentially what blocking is. And unfortunately, that's sometimes what people have to do. In practical terms, you're right. People have different thresholds for the amount of abuse they can handle, and, of course, often different kinds of personal tools for dealing with it. But I DO hate that it tends to be those targeted who are the ones who have to leave -- the club, the community, or, indeed, the platform.

That's a bit sobering. If this is true -- which would obviously be awful and unfair -- it'd be nice if it were at least public knowledge.

He's probably blocked himself, and can't access the thread.

First, I'm delighted to know that you think that there is little chance of this escalating to RL. I hope that you're right, obviously. LL almost never gets involved in what it calls "disputes between residents," which is I am sure what they consider this. My sense is that the harassment has to be pretty sustained and pretty serious for them to take action -- and it helps, probably, if it involves something like racism (although not necessarily). A slightly different circumstance, but one that will give you some sense of this: I manage two parcels for a group, located on two separate continents, both of which have been griefed by the same account -- it's an older one, with a legacy name -- multiple times. I'm not talking about his hedges infringing on my parcels: I mean seeding them with self-replicating objects, or, in another instance, pushing a giant prim construction covered with insulting text from SLRR land (where there is a public rez zone) onto one of my parcels, entirely blocking access to it. (The root prim was still on the rail lands, so I had a hell of a time removing it). I have ARed each instance. So far as I know, not a thing has been done. He's still around -- I fully expect to be griefed by him again. And I full expect LL to do nothing, once again. I suspect it comes down to resources, on the one hand, and an unwillingness to get too involved in "residential disputes," even when those are unquestionably harassment.

I know enough about probably a half a dozen of my friends that I could probably track down their RL identity with ease. In a couple of cases I have RL names and locations. And although I've never given either out with any specificity to anyone who doesn't already know me in RL, I imagine that there is enough info about me floating around that I could be doxxed by someone willing to put the effort into it. There are a great many tools available for this kind of thing now, especially if you are interacting as well off this platform.

Jesus . . . The suggestion here is that this involved a threat of RL violence. Newsflash: you can't "block" someone in RL. I have no idea on the basis of the info given if there is real reason to believe that this person can act upon an RL threat, but it's certainly possible. And you don't know that it's not. Yes, LL should act on this. And yes, the RL police should be involved.

Thank you! And of course I don't mind (just let me know if we're going to the same party so we don't both wear it!) The hair is Dura U101. (Love their styles and texturing, but they need to work on the colours available.)

Victoria, the shading and composition of this photo are outstanding! What a really wonderful pic!

This is awesome, Saskia. I love the hydrangea! (Oh, and you're pretty ok too! 😉)

Then DON'T. The whole point of this is that it is YOUR CHOICE!

This is such a bizarre inability to understand a basic concept. There are a kazillion things I can happily do for myself and to myself that it is emphatically not alright for someone else to do for me (without my permission). Coffee listed just one. Do you need an exhaustive list?

This exactly. That's not so hard to understand, is it? It's not "hypocrisy." It's freedom. And I really couldn't care less how you or anyone else interprets it.

*facepalms*

I wonder how long I'd be Prok's tenant before I discovered a multi-episode series of "Rental Dementia" blog posts devoted to me . . . /me muses 😏 I have to say that I have heard, with only one or two exceptions, pretty much nothing but good things from those who rent from him.

This is such an important point. Blockchain-based VR, NFTs, and crypto are all built upon the assumption that a completely unregulated free market should determine value. Now, some of the cryptocurrencies are finding themselves having to back away from that in order to create some stability as the value of their currencies plummet, of course. SL, in the early days, didn't use blockchain, but the Linden dollar was unregulated -- at first. LL started intervening when they recognized that a stable currency was vital to a stable, healthy in-world economy, as Lindal's helpful graphic shows. It's almost a case of "been there, done that." They're hardly going to go back to a type of currency that they already know creates economic chaos.

Well, yes, they are fetishes. So too, notoriously, is age pl*y. Are we "ok" with that because it's "just" a fetish, and no actually minors are involved (probably)? How about "Sexy Concentration Camp Commandant"? Or KKK role play? Where have you drawn the line -- or do you draw one at all? What I'm trying to suggest is that this is a wee bit more complicated than "they are fetishes and nothing else." I don't have "the answer" -- if I did, I'd be on the lecture circuit right now instead of replying to you on the SL forum. But it's certainly too complicated to deal with here, in what is fast becoming a derail, so let's just leave it at "we agree to disagree."

Well, no. What I said is that it was "not unuseful." In other words, there is some value to knowing that you, and perhaps others, have a problem seeing these pics. I obviously would like people to see my pics here -- or I wouldn't post them. That said, you seem to be arguing that everyone should "optimize" their photos, as a web content creator might, to ensure that they can be seen in all sorts of contexts and on different devices. You also seem to be suggesting that we should all compose our photographs here with cell phones in mind, or with your cell phone in particular, as I actually can see these just fine on mine. And that, for instance, I shouldn't do dark pics, even though that is what I do, a lot, out of choice, because some people can't see them. In essence, you are telling me that my pictures are inappropriate, or don't work, or shouldn't be posted here, or at least be radically changed, because you can't see them properly. Except then they wouldn't be my pics anymore. Do you understand that? I put a great deal of thought and time and care into my photos -- as I know others here do as well. While I most certainly do want you to see them properly, I'm not going to stop creating the kinds of photos I want to create because your device can't display them properly. I'm sorry, but I'm just not.

I am sure that there are many people who take their pics primarily for the purpose of displaying them on this forum. Arguably, I suppose, it's not unuseful to hear that such-and-such a kind of picture doesn't display well here, or can't be seen properly on phones, or whatever. But many of us, most of us maybe, don't consider ourselves "content creators" for the SL forums. We produce pics for other venues -- in-world, perhaps, or Flickr, or Twitter, or whatever. And, maybe most of all, we are making them look the way that we want them to look. Our most important audience is ourselves. I like helpful posts about photography and pics here, and I've learned a great deal myself from such interventions over the years. But I don't think it's helpful or appropriate, maybe, to get snarky or demanding about it -- whether it's how "dark" our pics are, whether we "misuse" Dutch angles, or whatever. Produce the kinds of photos you want to produce! Make them look good to you. Personally, I'm far more interested in a photo that is an expression of the photographer's personality and aesthetic than I am in one that complies with someone else's "rules," even if those "rules" might make for a "better" photo (whatever that means). ETA. Oh yeah, this is a picture thread! Here's a pic. It's dark. I'm sorry!

This is moving a bit off topic, so I'll just answer this, and then leave the subject alone. Personally, I have as much problem with a group that proclaims the superiority of women over men, blacks over whites, gays over straights, or whatever, as I do the opposite kind of group. But such groups are not nearly as prevalent in SL as their counterparts, and they don't reflect a dominant strain of our culture in the way that racist, misogynist, or homophobic groups do. What's more, many of the groups that look, at first glance, to be advocating for the superiority of women, or blacks, or whatever, aren't really: a group for "white sl*ve women who want to serve the men of the black master race" isn't really a black empowerment group. I don't advocate for banning any of these groups, for a number of reasons. One is that it doesn't work: it just drives them underground. Anyone who thinks that age pl*y disappeared from the grid in 2007 hasn't done a very diligent search of groups, profiles, sims, or the Marketplace. I actually want these people where I can see them -- I want to know where the sleaze is oozing. It becomes a problem if they achieve a high profile, or seem to have the endorsement of authority or media, but that's not what's happening: these groups are quite happy to operate in the shadows. Arguably that makes them a bit cult-like . . . but not in most regards, I think. LL is, I am sincerely convinced, mostly staffed by really decent people, many of whom I think would count themselves as "progressives." But the "official" ethical stance of the platform isn't coming from them; it's being generated by LL's legal department and, maybe just occasionally, marketing and PR. LL has almost never cracked down on an in-world behaviour until forced to by bad PR, regulatory threats from governments, or worries about legal action. That was true of the ban on age pl*y, and it was true of the bans on SL banking, gambling, and gachas. In theory, LL should be a bit worried by recent stories about "sexual assaults" on Meta's Horizon -- the stuff happening there being sensationalized in the media now is laughably mild compared to what goes on in SL. In theory, SL is one really bad mainstream media story away from yet another public relations disaster. One of the good things, ironically, about its reputation and low profile is that no one can likely be bothered to produce one.