Scylla Rhiadra

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.

Jackbox is great -- fun and hilarious -- for those who, like me, detest Cards against Humanity. But yeah . . . different category of game entirely really.

It is, but the thing about "secret societies" and such is that they tend to be, um, "secret." Also confusing is the question of what is actually a "cult," in the sense of having RL effects (indoctrination, etc.), and what is RP. I suspect there are a great many groups that RP "being a cult," but leave it behind when they aren't actively engaged in that RP. I'm sure there are a few instances where that isn't true -- the RL Goreans mentioned above probably are pretty cultish. But that's awfully rare. As for the other things -- the non-existent FIC, "wokeness," and even things like racist or misogynist groups -- I don't think these qualify. They are at best an articulation of a set of beliefs or assumptions.

I think "cult" here has sort of generally come to mean "something I don't like" or "something to which I was not invited."

What are your examples of this?

I am of course curious to know what this "edgy role play" was. The issue of whether something violates the ToS and Community Standards is a somewhat vexed one, because these are frequently rather vague. Let's take this one, for instance: Outright antisemitic RP, for instance, is likely to get zapped pretty quickly by LL under this rule -- and quite rightly so. But I can point you to pretty clearly racist groups, or anti-Muslim ones, that seem to be just fine so far as LL is concerned. As for gender -- there are scores of groups and clubs with variants on "women are inferior," "women are all sl*ts," etc., given not merely as passing opinions, but as the actual raison d'etre of the groups. Here's the group profile image for one such: Is this "derogatory or demeaning language or images based on . . . gender"? Apparently . . . not.

This is going to be a poster for an upcoming show (which is why there is so much blank space), but I can't post that here (except a teeny version in my signature), so I thought I'd just post the shot itself. I spent maybe an hour fiddling with this in Photoshop, and then accidentally looked at the raw shot, and decided it was better than my processed version. I'm sure there is a lesson there . . . I did deepen the colours a bit and cropped slightly, but otherwise this is straight from the viewer (Black Dragon).

This is super plus good, Cath! Really gloriously cinematic!

No, to reiterate, neither have I. My hesitation is, as I tried to suggest, excessive and maybe slightly paranoid. But then, honestly, I'm a little paranoid too about sitting on furniture that isn't mine, merely because I do like having full control, and I don't like surprises (and have, in the past, had a few, albeit nothing too serious).

Yeah. This. The OP has gestured towards the Brave New World of NFTs and blockchain without providing any substantive explanation of how these will contribute to "fixing" SL. I begin to suspect that the point of wanting one-time payment for land here has much less to do with nurturing creativity and new venues to visit, and is a great deal more about facilitating the kind of free-wheeling land speculation we are seeing on platforms like Decentraland. I may of course be wrong, and I am happy to be corrected. But I don't think, increasingly, that this is about improving SL. I think it may be about monetizing it.

I'm afraid that if "the new thing from the future" is the Ponzi scheme that NFTs and crypto have demonstrated themselves to be, and the future the sterile shell game that is Decentraland, then I, and the vast majority of people here, don't want any part of it. There is no point in "saving" SL if that entails destroying what makes it worth saving in the first place.

Not really. It will tell you what tools it wants access to, not how it intends to use them. I'll admit that I always hesitate before saying yes to an experience, but I rarely go places where I'm likely to find myself feeling uncomfortable or regretting it. Mostly they are shopping experiences. I've never actually had a bad one, so it's mostly just excessive caution and a teeny bit of paranoia on my part.

I don't think this is at all the case -- except perhaps for cryptocurrencies and NFTs, and, at the moment, they're looking like a pretty poor model to follow. It may be, long long term, that land in a blockchain-based model is "cheaper," but no one is building there, because the economic model in place is about land speculation, and not about creating content. Right now, people are investing in SL land, on the mainland, and in estates, to build wonderful things because the startup money is, relatively speaking, much more reasonable here. People ARE more and more used to paying fees for things -- for software, for games, for streaming platforms. I think LL is right in line with that. And, again, I don't think land is the key to increasing SL's popularity and retention rates.

I think your overall point is entirely legitimate. And yes, I get that this isn't about you, and your SL experience. I don't think, to be honest however, that cheaper land is the magic bullet here. There is already, now, under current financial and economic conditions, a great deal of amazing content in SL in terms of regions and sims that have been lovingly crafted by people who want others to share their experience. There's far, far more than I could ever manage to see comfortably. And what there is caters to a really wide range of tastes and interests. For instance, there is a lot of science fiction and fantasy in SL -- neither of which really interests me at all. But that's fine, because there are also a great many sims and regions that do feature things that I enjoy. I think LL could do a much much better job of marketing what is currently available. They could cast a spotlight on a new and different interesting region or parcel probably ever couple of days, and never run out of new content to feature. But, LL has . . . problems, with marketing. It would be lovely if land costs were cheaper. I'd love a really large expanse of land to build an historically-themed parkland on (imagine St. James's Park, or Villa D'Este, or Vaux Le Vicomte in SL!). But that's not feasible given LL's business model. And, ultimately, I don't think that's the route to attracting more people in any case. What they need to do mostly, I think, is focus on the details of how SL is experienced and employed in a more personal way. The new user experience needs to be made better. The UI needs to be made more intuitive. The system for avatar customization, in particular, needs to be simplified and tidied up (it's a disaster as is). People don't pop into SL for the first time and immediately ask to visit a recreation of Rivendell. At least, most don't. They want to know where to find people, and how to make their avatar look better. Once they are comfortable in their own skin, and feel at "home" here, they are more likely to be attracted to the diverse range of places to visit.

Beginning from the mid-70s, consumer and health advocates began to target baby formula companies, and in particular Nestlé, for their marketing of baby formula in the developing world, especially in Africa. Women were being encouraged -- and subtly mislead to believe that they were doing the right thing -- to give up breast feeding and use commercial formula instead. The result was a measurable increase in infant mortality, because of course formula is NOT as healthy as breast milk, but also because most of these women were too poor to afford to use it properly -- it was being diluted, often with contaminated water (because they didn't have ready access to clean water) to make it last longer. Beginning in the 80s, Nestlé in particular became the subject of boycotts because of its African marketing campaigns. They are still being scrutinized carefully, because they're still trying to push it in the developing world.

Most of their social media was pulled down some time ago. The SL group had links to RL Proud Boys material online -- all gone now.

No, and I suspect that its creator (whom I know somewhat from here) is probably incapable of being embarrassed by it. On the other hand, the Proud Boys aren't exactly a prestigious property at the moment.