Scylla Rhiadra

I would like that, a lot. Many of my styles are chosen with still photography in mind anyway, so texturing and detail is more important than movement, but I DO go dancing a lot, and a touch of flexi add a LOT to the visual experience. But, of course, it has to be done in such a way that you don't have your ponytail swinging through your head.

But actually, I agree, in a sort of general way. The best mesh hair these days has anything older than a couple of years beat hands down in terms of quality of texturing. But I do have a couple of mesh styles (short cuts) with bits of mesh to add some movement, and they look great I think. And I'll still occasionally run across something made with prims and sculpties that is a marvel of creativity and detail. I certainly miss the days of really digging into building in-world.

Good to hear, Solar. There are, obviously, Dom/mes in SL, as well as, I'm sure, groups and clubs who are knowledgeable and abide by those principles. Tolya, for instance. It's an interesting thought though . . . I wonder if the non-human community might be more sensitive to these issues because of its sense of the tendency to marginalize it? Or something else; i don't know. Interesting question though. This has been very much the experience of most people I've known in SL who were or are into the Lifestyle here. It's a shame, because, although there is nothing about BDSM that appeals to me personally, I'm sure that the richness of the experience must surely derive primarily from the depth of feeling and mutual care between Dom/me and sub. Without that . . . you might just as well get off on a video game NPC.

And this is maybe where your comment about SL BDSM does become relevant. It would appear that there is at least one person in this thread (not you) who either thinks that's just fine, or lacks any understanding of what BDSM actually means. Or both.

You have a problem with consent as the basis for personal interactions, Sam? You must be a lot of fun at orgies.

So . . . obnoxious violations of consent are "ok" at fetish clubs? "Adult" means never having to say you're sorry, eh? Your understanding of BDSM and fetish are very different from mine. And from the guidelines set out by REAL BDSM organizations.

I am so glad, Bomba! And there really are lots of lovely people here -- it's just that sometimes we forget, in the rough and tumble of forum posting, that people who are new here don't always pick up on the tone of our posts. I think, as you'll see from Chris's apology above, that even people who seemed not to get it at first are listening, and responding, and DO care. You seem to have sorted this out. I hope very much that it's not something you have to deal with again.

Again . . . yes, use the block function. (Although personally I prefer to think of such instances as a sort of, slightly rough-around-the-edges "learning opportunity" for the butt slapper. I DO enjoy education, don't you?) One thing you're ignoring, however, is that the block function can only be employed after the fact. It will prevent future offensives, but it doesn't erase the behavior that provoked it. And that behavior is still obnoxious, and not less so because I have the means to prevent its repetition. And actually, what's more, it doesn't actually prevent it -- it merely shields me from it. Blocking someone doesn't render ME invisible to them -- they can continue to "kiss" or "butt slap" to their heart's content, often in public with other people as witnesses. The best I can hope for to prevent that is requesting that the landowner ban the person. So the block function is really kind of band aid that doesn't address the behavior. It merely hides it from me. (And only me.)

Sorry, Chris, but that's pretty much exactly what you were saying. Your contempt of anyone with the temerity to "complain" about obnoxious and anti-social behavior is pretty clearly implied: The idea that things like this only impact on our virtual bodies, and not on the mental and emotional state of our typists, is also more than a bit questionable. Possibly so. I've heard others say this as well. But I'm not sure of its relevance.

Absolutely she should use the tools at her disposal -- just as we should lock our front doors if we leave the house. But the fact that I might forget to lock it doesn't make the thief who takes advantage any less of a thief. The guy is a jerk. Block him! But he's still a jerk. None of these things preclude being civil and obtaining consent In fact, BDSM is built upon the cornerstone of consent. A Dom/me who doesn't obtain it before engaging in something like this is a crappy Dom/me who doesn't understand the principles of the Lifestyle.

/me giggles and blushes Now, see . . . personally, think that's just kind of adorable and funny. And it's hard to imagine too many people finding it otherwise. Context is everything, right? But I'll use the example of emoting a butt slap, because that happens to me a great deal more often than an unsolicited kiss. When someone (invariably a man) emotes to me "/me slaps your butt hard," it obviously doesn't affect me the same way that it would in RL. My butt is not tingling or sore afterwards, and I don't feel anything like the same violation of personal space that I would if I were subjected to it in RL. But doing so, without my consent, does impose upon me a degree of intimacy, and maybe even "ownership," that I have not granted. It assumes that that person has the right to interact with me in any way they chose, without consulting me about my wishes. So a virtual butt slap doesn't "hurt," and it's not potentially physically threatening in the way it might be in an RL context, so those are things that are not components of my reaction to it. What I do react to, and what makes me angry (generally resulting in a verbal barrage directed at the slapper) are its underlying assumptions, and its attempt to compel me into a kind of engagement with that person that I haven't consented to, and don't want. In that sense, it's more like being insulted verbally than physically assaulted. Even so, it's still uncalled for, unnecessary, uncivil . . . and it pisses me off.

Being insulted or verbally abused is "harmless" in much the same way. And it has even easier remedies, such as block or ignore. That doesn't make them any less obnoxious or unwelcome. I'm pretty sure you'd not enjoy them? People have different thresholds for what is acceptable or offensive. When they are offended by something that does not directly impinge on them -- like what someone else is wearing, for instance -- it's probably (usually) valid to suggest that they effect a remedy themselves rather than complaining. But when the behavior is something that engages them directly, I think they have a right, even in a virtual environment, to object. No, none of this is in any way equivalent to RL experience nor does it impact the way it would in RL, but it can and does impact nonetheless. If it didn't, none of us would be here: we are ALL being emotionally impacted, at one level or another, by something here, or there would be no point in the place. SL s*x for instance is not the equivalent of the RL article, and yet it seems to have enough emotional punch that plenty of people engage in it. Have you never been emotionally affected by something "virtual" in SL -- an unpleasant experience, or conversation, or disturbing imagery? If not, you've been very fortunate. I think it is only courteous and civil and humane to NOT assume that everyone else has the same responses to certain behaviors that you do. When you criticize someone for being oversensitive to something, are you not imposing YOUR standards on someone else? What gives you that right? What's more there are things that may be triggering for people who've experienced some form of RL experience or PTSD about which you know nothing. Consent is always important -- whether it is for intruding upon someone's virtual land, or slapping their butt, or giving them a kiss. Surely extending the basic courtesy of asking first is not too much to ask?

Being insulted or verbally abused or subjected to a stream of obscenities is "harmless" in much the same way. And it has even easier remedies, such as block or ignore. That doesn't make them any less obnoxious or unwelcome. I'm pretty sure you'd not enjoy them? People have different thresholds for what is acceptable or offensive. When they are offended by something does not directly impinge on them -- like what someone else is wearing, for instance -- it's probably (usually) valid to suggest that they effect a remedy themselves rather than complaining. But when the behavior is something that engages them directly, I think they have a right, even in a virtual environment, to object. No, none of this is in any way equivalent to "rape," nor does it impact the way it would in RL, but it can and does impact nonetheless. If it didn't, none of us would be here: we are ALL being emotionally impacted, at one level or another, by something here, or there would be no point in the place. SL sex for instance is not the equivalent of the RL article, and yet it seems to have enough emotional punch that plenty of people engage in it. Have you never been emotionally affected by something "virtual" in SL -- an unpleasant experience, or conversation, or disturbing imagery? If not, you've been very fortunate. I think it is only courteous and civil and humane to NOT assume that everyone else has the same responses to certain behaviors that you do. When you criticize someone for being oversensitive to something, are you not imposing YOUR standards on someone else? What gives you that right? What's more there are things that may be triggering for people who've experienced some form of RL experience or trauma about which you know nothing. Consent is always important -- whether it is for intruding upon someone's virtual land, or slapping their butt, or giving them a kiss. Surely extending the basic courteous of asking first is not too much to ask?

Whew!

Illumine

These are really lovely shots, especially the one on the right, where you make the slight lens distortion work for you! Also, very cute. He doesn't look like a goofball. He just looks nice. Although I suppose he could be a nice goofball. Anyway, post more! These are wonderful, and they really show the connection the two of you have!

What Rides the Beam?

And I'm laughing with you! Unlike most autonomous agents, you're fun to engage with!

Gawd knows, I'm not going to pretend I read the entire thesis. But the examples given in the abstract and introduction are "Rick" from Casablanca and "Elmer Fudd" (/me looks meaningfully at @Madelaine McMasters). These are two-dimensional fictional characters. They are designed to exist only in certain contexts. Imagining Elmer Fudd meditating profoundly on his existence, or interacting in a realistic way with the guy at the local convenience store makes no sense, because those are not contexts for which this rather simplistic character was created. You could conjecture on how he might handle such things -- but they you'd be creating an entirely new Elmer Fudd, differentiated from the original only by having been given new contexts. It's a bit analogous to the old query: "What does Hamlet do when he's off stage?" The answer is . . . nothing! Because Hamlet literally doesn't exist when he's not on stage. I can imagine some utility for thinking as you are about role play, because there too you are creating fictional identities for particular contexts. Even then, however, you'd probably be better off resorting to something like method acting, because we are not, as a species, yet at the point (thank god) where we can be programmed using machine-readable language. But generating autonomous agents, believable or not, as part of a process of self-discovery would be utterly inauthentic to who you are, because they have no will and no ability to learn or move out of the contexts for which they were created. They aren't human.

Having downloaded and looked over the original thesis (/me shakes her fist at Chrona), yes . . . the original document is about creating "believable" autonomous agents -- essentially cleverly designed NPCs that will enhance one's experience in interactive virtual environments. These use AI, but the thesis explicitly suggests that they are produced with pre-constructed "personalities." They don't "grow" or "learn" in a meaningfully human way. In this sense, it seems to me that what is proposed is pretty much the exact opposite of what Chrona seems to think he's talking about.

I am beginning to suspect you may be right. Well, that's one way to generate a "believable agent," I suppose. If you believe that cats laugh-cry.

I'm sorry, I was under the apparent misapprehension that you actually wanted to discuss this subject.

Use your words, Chroma.

I'm not very clear on what you mean here, Chroma. Are you talking about scripted bots and animesh NPCs? About role play? You're not surely referring to how we represent ourselves through our avatars, are you? You sort of seem to be, in your second paragraph. It seems to me that there is a world of difference between self-actualization and exploration, and the sort of "authoring" that is being referenced and discussed here (notwithstanding what Go says above).

Awww, thanks Charalyne! I'd blush becomingly, but I'm in black and white, so it would just come out grey. 🙄