Dresden Ceriano

Gadget Portal wrote: I can say from experience that if you argue enough, they will tell you what you did wrong. You mean they actually reply to you? ...Dres *must be doing something wrong*

Perrie Juran wrote: What we lack here is the "warning shot." Rather than a moderator popping into a thread and saying "tone the rhetoric down a little,' or, "interpersonal disputes should be taken elsewhere, etc," posts get pulled and suspensions issued. There's no transparency and little to no chance to correct ones self if we have gotten out of hand. In a General Discussion Forum that's at least in my opinion the way it should be handled. Pulling posts and giving people time outs should not occur until after that. Seems to me that this would be very effective. But, I'd be happy if the moderators were simply required to provide you with the specific section of the CG which they think you've violated, instead of just the nebulous, "Your post was in violation of the CG" that they offer now. At least, that would indicate that they'd actually put some thought into it. Also, though I understand that this would add quite a bit to their workload, I believe they should be required to actually reply to you if you either ask for further clarification or wish to state your case in order to contest the warning which you've received (in private, of course)... is that really too much to ask? I get the feeling that the firm which LL hired to provide these moderators is paying the poor fools minimum wage. You get what you pay for, after all. ...Dres

You might want to consider gacha machines, because, as far as I know, the items sold through them are always transferable. The Arcade, which offers a good concentration of them from many quality creators, is opening back up on December 1st. You could also check out yard sales where, by the nature of them, everything is required to be transferable. ...Dres

Perrie Juran wrote: kaymichel wrote: Thanks . Yeah. It was a Group Tag. Didn´t even remember joining that Group and activating it. I just click on accept if someone asks me to join and i have free space When you join a group it automatically becomes your "active group." Firestorm has in preferences a choice to "hide own group titles." If it's enabled no one will see them. I don't remember now if in the Official Viewer if "hide group" in preferences hides them from others also. If not, there is still a debug setting you can use, RenderHideGroupTitle. Setting it to "true" will hide your group title from others. Well, well... no matter how much I learn, there's always something new to discover. I had no idea the option to hide your tags from everyone was available. Don't know if I'll ever feel the need to use it, but at least I know it's there now. Thanks, Perrie. ...Dres

Dillon Levenque wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: ...I'm unsure of whom exactly you're apologizing to... ...Dres To TDD and the thread participants in general. As I said, my post added nothing to the conversation but acrimony. Well, in that case, I apologize to everyone for the atrocious grammar displayed within the phrase you've quoted. ...Dres

LoooseLucy wrote: Travis Overland is the owner and is currently an experienced and sought after liver performer on Second Life. Ooh, I've never seen anyone perform with a liver before. ...Dres (Sorry... I couldn't help myself. Some typos are too good to pass up.)

Phil Deakins wrote: Dillon Levenque wrote: I've been away since I first posted in this thread. I should not, in fact, have posted at all. There was no need and I should not have injected 'acrimony' of my own into the conversation. I just (as has been mentioned elsewhere) have a very aggressive response to someone saying 'discuss'. There's no need to apologise for that. As you've seen, you are not the only one who reacts to the instruction "discuss", and I wrote my comments about it before I read yours. To my way of thinking, it's tantamount to a rudeness, and it gets right up my nose. It's the sort of thing that a teacher in authority might say to students, and not the sort of attitude a stanger coming in from the street should adopt. I can understand why some may consider this practice a bit pompous, but, for the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would consider it offensive. ...Dres

Perrie Juran wrote: This Forum is exactly what (past) Management of Linden Lab wanted it to be. Still other factors came in. There was a Similar Thread related to this topic recently. Quoting my own self from there I wrote: "You are right, the old Forum was livelier. But if you think back a lot of those updates were ongoing flame wars. Some people could not post anything with out getting attacked. There was really no moderation. And it could get very tedious to try and discuss anything because the fights and disagreements took over the threads. It was like the Hatfields and McCoys. On the other side now in this Forum we do have moderation. My opinion is while it was needed it is too heavy handed. Some people get their panties in a wad way too easy and are too fast on the RIC button. Both extremes kill discussion. And then we could add to this people who want to rule over this Forum. They could be the worst thing that happens here but what can we do about it? Add to this what do we do about people who post truly idiotic things. How about the entitlement Generation who think LL or the Merchants or the Land Lords owe them something? It sadly can all be very problematic." I'd like to see things loosen up here. I'd like for us to be able to discuss Adult topics without having to resort to PG language. When we had the 'Welcome Ebbe Thread' I said to him after we got his attention here (he was posting over in SLU), "Doesn't it seem odd that so many SL discussions are happening over there ratther than in Second Life's Forum." Either he missed my point or he danced around it. His reply, paraphrasing here, was, "I'm going to go where I have an audience." This is pretty much precisely what I've been trying to say. Though I'm less concerned about moderation loosening up than I am with consistency and accountability in the process. ...Dres

Theresa Tennyson wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: Nevertheless, as we seem to agree, it matters not. LL have the forum they want and no wishing on any mere, forum participant's part is going to change that. ...Dres I don't see how you could expect anything different. Think of it this way - if you go into a small owner-operated store it's not uncommon for you to see a cat or dog hanging out there. If you go to a store that's part of a chain, you'll almost never see that. The reason is that the owner of a small store is in a position to judge whether or not the benefit of having their pet there outweighs any possible mayhem that may be caused - I used to shop at a vintage clothing store run by a woman who had both a white and a black cat living there, basically guaranteeing that anything you bought would have some sort of visible cat hair on it. If you couldn't deal with that you probably wouldn't shop there. However, in a chain store any mayhem would quickly become the problem of someone miles away who Does. Not. Want. To. Deal. With. It. And honestly, shouldn't have to deal with it because Fluffy being there doesn't improve their life in the slightest. So Fluffy stays home because the hand holding the money says so. In a forum, any moderation that isn't strictly mechanical will require some sort of judgement and at least be percieved as "taking sides", and the moderator will become the de facto voice of the company. If the conversation is about the company's product itself then the company has a reason to work something out. However, if it's just people talking about unrelated subjects it does the company absolutely no good to get involved and be seen as taking positions on these issues. It's different for a company than for a voluntary group - for instance, take a look at the Firestorm JIRA. You'll probably quickly notice that one of the major voices of Firestorm on the JIRA... well... let's just say "has a way about her." Now imagine how it would look if that same voice was coming from someone with the last name of Linden. SLU will always be better able to tolerate "lively" discussion because the moderation only represents the forum itself and in the end the forum's business is discussion anyway. I agree with you entirely. It's the quality of judgement being used here, or lack thereof, with which I take issue. ...Dres

Ceka Cianci wrote: Wow,That's a name i haven't heard in a long time.. Scylla. I think the last time i seen her was at the first hippystock hehehe A rose by any other name would smell as sweet ~W.S. ...Dres

POLIDOG Bebb wrote: I have a business in construction, and a client asked me to build a club with the same structure made another club in second life, my question is if we perform this in mesh design, it is a crime? In my opinion, doing such a thing would be infringing on the original creator's intellectual property, unless you get their permission beforehand (in which case, I'd suggest getting it in writing for your own safety). Honestly, though... if I were you, I'd explain this to your client and tell them you'll work with them to create something original which they'll like even more. ...Dres

Dillon Levenque wrote: TDD123 wrote: Sy Beck wrote : So I can't say discuss, but you feel free to decide what is an appropriate thread here? I invite discussion, you wish to passively censor it, interesting. Why is it irrelevant to you? You don't live inside a bubble. That's akin to believing that the rich shouldn't have a concern for the poor because they are irrelevant to them; a wholly specious argument. This is not 4chan or Reddit where these discussions are common and, as gamergate proves, run out of hand too quickly before anyone can say 'Stop this nonsense !'. I think that is meant by Dillon. If she did mean that, I concur. I've been away since I first posted in this thread. I should not, in fact, have posted at all. There was no need and I should not have injected 'acrimony' of my own into the conversation. I just (as has been mentioned elsewhere) have a very aggressive response to someone saying 'discuss'. Most of us would ask something like, "What do you think about this?". Also, the OP is someone I don't care for (I think that started when he invoked Niemoller* in a thread on the Feed regarding the forum ban of one of his buddies, as if SL were a frikking state) and it hasn't gotten any better since. I don't care for people who act as though their (perceived) intelligence somehow makes them superior. As I said, I should not have posted. I let my irritation get the best of me. My apologies. As to my saying there's no reason to bring the gamergate discussion here, your interpretation of my reasoning is exactly correct. I've waded through a great many twitter, 8chan, and reddit threads that I frankly wish I'd never seen. * The umlaut over the 'o' is not permitted in this community, apparently. I vaguely remember that being mentioned elsewhere. In any case there should have been one above the 'o' in Niemoller. I must comment you for offering an apology, even though I'm unsure of whom exactly you're apologizing to... perhaps yourself? I certainly do understand how difficult it can sometimes be to reply to the post and not the poster. ...Dres

TDD123 wrote: Since you ask me : I suspect the OP did not fully intend to solely discuss gamergate eleborately, but probes for presences reminiscent to him of former forum days. The fewer responses to that, the less interest will take towards the original subject at hand. I admit I might as well be wrong about that. We'll see how the thread evolves. This repeating sentiment over former forum-participation seems an invitation to repeat a sequence of posts which will eventually, again, result in suspension of those posting who prefer pep-talk causing wrinkles in storms of drinks. Repeat of such sentiment will of course also result in comments by those who wish to do without. I think it's indicative I'm not the only one in this thread with the same attitude to be happy to forfeit such repeats. We can't discuss the quality of moderation without the risk of certain moderation. You know that. It also cannot reasonably be expected otherwise from a company which sells you a gaming environment where moral sometimes seems as incontrollable as gun-control ( referring to the Wild West here ), because of the freedom of expression many enjoy ; either inworld or here. The forums are an immediate window for them to the outside world. And to me .. whatever has been RIC in these forums, and in this GD particularly, was hardly worth saving for posterity anyway.Hardly anything posted in here is and will be. Goes twice for my own posts. Certainly not to me. I expect from Lindenlab nothing else. I hope I explained myself better to you. ETA : Notwithingstanding having enjoyed many posts here by just as many contributors. Yours included. ETA2 Extra edits. Thank you for the explanation. The reason I didn't understand your previous statement was because I didn't think I saw anyone say they wanted the supposed good old days back, at least in this thread. A little reminiscing perhaps, a bit of commentary on the state of this forum as compared to then... sure, but that's about it. It was actually Theresa who originally brought up the supposed good old days for which she wasn't around. At which point, I simply tried to point out that her vision of what the supposed good old days might have been was only a portion of what it actually was and to give a bit of history about what brought us here from there. Nevertheless, as we seem to agree, it matters not. LL have the forum they want and no wishing on any mere, forum participant's part is going to change that. ...Dres

TDD123 wrote: Well .. seems to me the 'good old days' try to be back again .. :robotmad: I don't exactly know what you mean by this. I've never been of a mind to refer to previous instances of this forum as the good old days. Just because I find the quality of moderation here unsatisfactory, doesn't mean I wish to return to having none whatsoever. ...Dres

Pussycat Catnap wrote: Sy Beck wrote: I came back here due to a necro-thread in SL, where one could arguably assert that the worst of female submissive and male expectation tropes are exhibited and even sold, it has not been raised as a topic of conversation/debate once. For my part I think Anita Sarkeesian is an extorting self-righteous pseudo, actually no a fake, feminist discuss. So you're basically hoping to troll the forum with an intentionally inflamatory remark about a public figure, after commenting about how you feel the women in SL exhibit the worst kinds of behavoir... This seems solely intended for the purpose of creating hostile argument in the community... /facepalm We have our arguments here, often enough - when other topics slip into them or when they directly address an SL issue. We don't need topics that have no purpose other than to create flame wars and make whoever gets most upset look bad. There are other "SL" forums for that. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't try to start a discussion here without someone accusing you of being a troll, just because they disagree with your opinion. ...Dres

Theresa Tennyson wrote: Sy Beck wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I ought to have commented on this when you mentioned it earlier. If this GD forum appears to be a help forum, then it's entirely to do with its users, and nothing at all to do with the moderators. People can discuss pretty much anything here. You are doing it yourself with this thread. So there is no need to rename or remove it. It is exactly what the users of it make it. Evidently wrong. I could name a whole host of people who used to contribute significantly to this forum who have either moved on because of the moderation and them not being able to express themselves freely or have left SL for something else. What's left is the remainder who predominantly use it as a help forum rather than as a General Discussion forum, which I am ambivalent to, but if it walks like a duck ect..... Anyway, my son is tugging me away to go assist him in the rescue of that iconic female trope Princess Daisy, which is probably I fear going to turn him into a gorilla hater more than a misogynist. I wasn't here during the "good old days", but from what I've seen of the aging "rock stars" of that era the "discussion" was the equivalent of holding a treat over the head of a little dog, thereby making it jump, snap and yap so intently that you can lead it all around the room until you eventually cause it to fall down a flight of stairs. I'm sure it was entertaining for the one holding the treat and the dog participated because that's the way dogs roll, but for everyone else it was probably, "Yeah, yeah, same old Youtube video from three years ago." No, you weren't here, therefore you're in no real position to know how incredibly vibrant, active and interesting the GD forum was back then. Did what you describe take place?... sure, but it was only a fraction of the activity taking place. The thing is, there was no real moderation at the time, so things would get out of hand and there was no one there to pull it back into order. Then came Lithium, and along with it, came overly draconian moderation. It's like we went from the wild west to a prison cell, overnight. At which point, a lot of people just didn't want to deal with it and left, while those of us who stayed tried to work with Amanda to make this a more community friendly environment. And together we were somewhat successful... in that the moderation became much less restrictive and they actually allowed us to have a GD forum back. Then the powers that be got rid of Amanda and stopped communicating entirely. So now we're left with a moderation team that does whatever they want, without ever having to take responsibility for their sometimes incredibly questionable actions. Hell, they don't even have to give you a reason for the posts they pull and the warnings they give. Anything with even the hint of confrontation is subject to disappearing, whether the CG was violated or not. And all because a couple of hyper-emotional idiots will inevitably take issue with someone's contradictory opinion and RIC their post. It's as though the moderators act as if the very fact that a post was RICed by more than one person makes the violation valid, whether or not it actually is. This is not the sort of atmosphere which inspires serious discussion... which is exactly why this forum is in such sad shape. But, that's exactly the way LL wants it to be, so there's nothing anyone can really do about it at this point. ...Dres

Phil Deakins wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: It's my belief that a lot of very interesting participants were either driven away or banned from this forum due to inconsistent, sometimes draconian, sometimes, utterly incoherent moderation. I could go on and on about this but will refrain from doing so, because, you see, I've pretty much been beaten into submission. It's gotten to the point that helping people is about the only thing I feel comfortable doing here without having to worry when and from where my next warning will come (I've pretty much given up on why). What??? That's so very disappointing. No wonder the forum doesn't hold the interest for me that it once did. (FWIW, I've never RICed any of your posts. On the whole, I'm not an RICer. Someone has to post something really bad before I'm tempted to RIC a post and, even then, I usually don't) Oh, I know you're not a RICer, but I suspect that's because you do indeed enjoy getting into a good argument from time to time. Which is precisely why I find you to be one of the most interesting regulars still left here. The problem stems from the ones who are so overly sensitive that they can't handle any sort of confrontation, no matter how insignificant, and would rather silence other people's opinions than defend their own. And, of course, there was a while there when, I strongly suspect, there were a number of people, no longer participating here, who'd lurk with the intent to look for reasons to RIC anyone they didn't personally like, for whatever reason. ...Dres

Sy Beck wrote: Nonsense, that's bubble thinking. It is often the observer who can clearly see the whole picture that can give the most informed and unbiased analysis, which you have done in your conclusion. The preposterous propositions of Sarkeesian and her vehement supporters have incited some truly ugly misogynists to break cover and spew forth their ignorant hate. Meanwhile an honest endeavour to clear up an actual problem gets lost and coopted by both extremities to suit their own ends. You certainly have a point... though, in this case, I'm simply not sufficiently informed about gamergate to offer any deeper analysis than that which I already have. Sy Beck wrote: Hope to see you soon and give my love to Grimmy. Oh no, you'd better shoot her an IM and give it to her directly... any love you throw my way, I'm keeping for myself. :matte-motes-wink-tongue: ...Dres

The TOS doesn't disallow Freud or any other dead psychoanalysts, as far as I can tell. ...Dres

Hey Sy... lovely to see you again, my friend. Sy Beck wrote: I came back here due to a necro-thread, which within it lamented the passing of many notable contributors to this forum. This is after all a General Discussion forum and was fought hard for to be retained when past forum changes were made. It now seems it should more aptly be named a "help" forum rather than a space for wide ranging discussion, which it was hoped to be. It's my belief that a lot of very interesting participants were either driven away or banned from this forum due to inconsistent, sometimes draconian, sometimes, utterly incoherent moderation. I could go on and on about this but will refrain from doing so, because, you see, I've pretty much been beaten into submission. It's gotten to the point that helping people is about the only thing I feel comfortable doing here without having to worry when and from where my next warning will come (I've pretty much given up on why). Sy Beck wrote: Given SL is an online gaming mmo (in its loosest sense) community and this is a general discussion forum and the majority of SL residents are women I was somewhat surprised to see that #gamergate has not been raised even once in all the posts here. It's a subject that is certainly raging all over the internet and within the gaming community, but here in SL, where one could arguably assert that the worst of female submissive and male expectation tropes are exhibited and even sold, it has not been raised as a topic of conversation/debate once. As I understand it, GamerGate is about institutionalized sexism within the gaming industry. Since pretty much everything in SL (and certainly anything that might be considered sexist) is user generated, the sexism on display here can't really be considered institutionalized. Therefore... well, I speak only for myself when I say that I hold little interest in discussing it. As a gay man, though I do realize that it's certainly significant to the world in which I exist, I often feel as if I'm relegated to watching the battle of the sexes from the sidelines. Which makes it less likely that I would ever feel as if I've something significant to add to the conversation. Nevertheless, I will say that the ugly, misogynistic reaction of the male gamers who've attacked Anita and those who share her view, only serve to fortify her position. They're not really doing themselves any favors by behaving so. ...Dres

Estelle Pienaar wrote: These are intersting speculations and it would make sense to use existing and widely adopted platforms. If it would really be the direction of LL, then I'd be for the first time excited about SL2.0. But for the time beig SL and LSL is what we got and I enjoy workig with it. If I'm remembering correctly, Ebbe did state that using a more universal scripting language is precisely what LL is intending to do for the new platform (which I refuse to refer to as SL2), but that they had yet to decide which one. Who knows if this development will influence that decision... but it is interesting. ...Dres

Quinn Lysette wrote: what is hardware skinning At its most simplistic, hardware skinning tells your GPU to perform your avatar mesh's deformation instead of your CPU. I don't know why it needs to be disabled for AMD cards, except that, for some reason, they obviously aren't preforming the deformations correctly... why, I've no idea. Someone much more knowledgable than I will probably show up who can provide a more detailed answer. ...Dres

Shergar Zong wrote: I therefore demand that I am paid 30L for each day of this so-called maintenance project, to recoup my lost earnings. I must assume you've read and agreed to the LL TOS, which states the following: 1.5 The Service is subject to scheduled and unscheduled service interruptions and loss of server data, which you do not own and for which you will not hold us liable. Linden Lab may on occasion need to interrupt the Service with or without prior notice. You agree that Linden Lab will not be liable for any interruption of the Service (whether intentional or not), and you understand that except as may otherwise be specifically provided in Linden Lab's billing policies, posted on applicable areas of the Service and/or Website(s), you will not be entitled to any refunds of fees or other compensation for interruption of service. ...Dres

Hoshi Kenin wrote: I am sure your 'raunchy, but not quite naughty, see I could go a couple of inches lower with the crop if I wanted to, but I don't 'cos this is a G rated forum and all that jazz' profile pic is almost, but not quite there. Go on, l:matte-motes-silly:ive dangerously Ha ha ha... you're a laugh riot. ...Dres

Robatxperia wrote: Too bad, no go. --noprobe either. Tried a couple of viewers. (Why can't I login directly to the site in stead of having to use a NOT STARTING viewer?) So after 2 days of newbie, I'm done with SL. Second Life is not a site, it's a virtual world for which you need a viewer in order to access, much like you need a browser to access a website. If you let us know a bit about your system and explain the exact issues you're having, we might be able to help you. ...Dres