Derek Torvalar

Magnus Brody wrote: GitLozt WelshWhine WizardofTosh I thought you were going to turn over a new leaf Magnus? What with turning 50 and all.

Is this my 'Welcome back!' thread? I can't speak for all Canadian men but I can attest to the fact that some of them are quite put off by most Canadian/North American women, their attitudes, and prefer European and Asian women. Generally speaking of course.

Randall Ahren wrote: LlewLlwyd wrote: * What is the meaning of life? That was inspired by fascist forumers who respond to the simplest questions in general discussion by posting a screen shot of the answers section instead of answering the question. Hey Ranadall. Care to explain the basic tenets of Fascism for us? Feel free to provide real world examples. While you are at it, include a discussion on authoritarian and authoritative. You might also like to head over to Forum Feedback for a short lesson on 'Flaming'. Better hurry though, that class is filling up fast as there are many here who have no idea what it means.

Look Here---->>>>

Perrie Juran wrote: LlewLlwyd wrote: My Grandad was a farmer who disdained the sort of progress monitoring that so delights modern day project managers. "A fence ain't a fence until it's done; you cain't 'av 'alf a fence or almost all a fence because the sheep dun know that it's a fence if they can get through the bit where it ain't a fence." My wife has the same philosophy. "Have you taken the rubbish out?" "I'm doing it." "Yes, but have you DONE it!" Does she also ask you, "If it's in yet?" That was below the belt Perrie. ;-)

LaskyaClaren wrote: LlewLlwyd wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: This is almost enough to bring me back here. High praise indeed! [in case you didn't realise, Laskya, Rich is the epitome of the n00b we WANT to attract to the cleaned up GD.] [but I wouldn't advise getting too close to him, as a) he's English and b) he has a thing for dominant women.] You should know me well enough to recognize that I am above petty prejudices of this sort. Why, some of my best friends once knew an English person. And enjoying being spoken "at" by a woman is pretty much a prerequisite for any male of my acquaintance. (Which might explain why Friday is a "Girls' Night Out" around here . . .) Not that you haven't had offers.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: KarenMichelle Lane wrote: Heart Brimmer wrote: Hi Mick, go to your dashboard, accounts and transaction history, it should show who sent you the gift there. (don't pay attention to the jerks in the forum) Heart. the protectors of the General Forum which I have taken to affectionately calling, The Poodles of Propriety, do have a point to their gentle chiding. The General Discussion Forum is for General Discussions. I also applaud all the SL Helpers who take the time to provide the answers here in-situ as well. Without you there would be no redress for these novice question askers. We used to ask the Moderators to move these questions into the SL Answers Questions forum but that made things worse. All the correct answers would become inaccessible. So this is the world we all now live in. GD is the best place to ask questions, so long as you have a thick skin. It doesn't matter what LL intended for GD and Answers. What they offered was a system in which you can't post to your own Answers thread and can't search from the Answers home page. Questions are usually answered faster here than in Answers, as there are simply more people watching. And they're as or more knowledgable than at least one denizen of the Answers area... me. So, if there's a point to the "gentle chiding", is it to ignore reality? Wrong again McMasters. The solution is not to populate inappropriate areas with the ridiculous questions. As I suggested to KML in a post that was pulled, if you confined your efforts to Answers only they would stop posting here. You are the problem. Stop reinforcing the aberrant behaviour. Impel LL to fix the problem if you have the solution to it. You are inducing and encouraging others to break the CG. If you can't supply an answer to the question that satisfies the OP without leading to or needing clarification then don't answer! Alternatively, the OP can start a new thread with any other clarification questions they may have. A pain in the ass, but so what. Deal with it.

Vulpinus wrote: As already said, there's only one real solution unfortunately, given the lack of care LL seems to have about such things. I do wonder though if you could insert your own self-replicating object into the problematic parcel. The sole purpose would be to keep the parcel full by replicating, thereby preventing the griefer's object from replicating. When the griefer's object is returned, yours would take up the slack space in the parcel. The griefer would have to manually replace theirs, in just that moment when one of your objects is returned and before your replicators could fill the parcel again. Possibly tricky to catch if you time your replication well. Might be a rubbish idea - it's 4am and I haven't slept for a while! Anyway, it would likely just start a war of escalation. As soon as 'they' get in the parcel again, I guess things wouldn't be pretty. ROFL Sleep first, then post.

ROFL

LaskyaClaren wrote: Well, apocalpytic predictions of the demise of the General Discussion forum here have been an established genre for at least as long as I've posted here or in its previous incarnations. It looks to me as though its time to move on to elegy. I remember saying, maybe a year ago or so, that obviously the new forum community liked it "quieter" here, and that that preference was their right. I'd congratulate them on establishing the Peace of the Grave, except that there is almost no one left to accept it. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe there is a community here that extends further than the four very familiar old faces who've bothered to post on this thread, but I'm not seeing it. Llazarus, Deja, Celestiall, and especially Derek, thanks for taking the time to do so. I wish you well in your new demesne, which seems to be pretty much your own to do with as you see fit. See you on the other side, as they say. The pity is that the 'regulars' who reside here now cannot recognize an actual discussion thread when they see one. Adieu Lasky

Magnus Brody wrote: LlewLlwyd wrote: Magnus Brody wrote: It was clear to me that you did not accuse me of being Rab C Nesbitt, rather you accused me of spending a great deal of time in a country which regarded him as the "acme of wit" which would be a generic stereotyping of me by nationality or by the nationality of those I associate with, which as stated previously, was a racist remark. Racist because you rely on the fundamental underpinning which is racism, this being "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race". Not all Scots regard Rab C Nesbitt to be the "acme of wit" and to suggest, as you have, is a racist stereotyping. Methinks the lady doth protest o'ermuch. [PS The Scots aren't a race; they don't even want to govern themselves.] Methinks you are an idiot, that doesn't mean I'm right. Methinks you have made a racist remark and built upon it, that is readable and clear. Mewonders what you'll be called next week. Forgive me for interjecting here but I believe you are misusing the term 'racist'. Correct me if I am wrong.

Magnus Brody wrote: I care not for support, and abhor sympathy. I care a lot for new folks confused and posting where it may gain help. If I were one of those posting here, I'd be upset by the continual posting of a pic of a screen which I didn't recognise. I do remember you being a voice when the GD vanished. Considering those who have no idea of this history, and perhaps see the word GENERAL, I think we could be a little kinder, no matter how annoying it is. Exasperation perhaps, like using the phrase "sick and tired"! The trouble is Magnus you, and others, are making an assumption on emotion. I am not posting my pic in anger or snark. It is merely information. Concise and to the point. One need only take the time to look at their screen to recognize where the hell they are. lol It really is not that difficult. More often than not however, the OP is not intereested in anything other but getting their information supplied to them, to be spoonfed. As is the case here in this thread specifically. The OP replied to my post with the smarmy response that they had "searched" the Answers. But did they actually ASK their question there. No they did not, at least I couldn't find it going 4 pages deep. Alternatively, did they go to KNowledge Base Tab? No they did not, for if they had they would have seen on the sidebar filter a way to get to the information they so desparately needed. This is not about poor confused noobs. This is about lazy, lameassed adults who can't be bothered to learn to function on their own. As I stipulated to Bobbie in another thread I am providing them an opportunity to gain independence and self-reliance. The first step being to learn to post in the appropriate area. From there, the kind souls are able to direct them with their cut and paste jobs to the appropriate information so that they may learn to use the platform with efficacy. Save your sympathies for those who are actually deserving.

Magnus Brody wrote: i am frankly sick and tired of your continual spam here. I remember a time when many of us fought long and hard to retain a GENERAL DISCUSSION forum mostly because, when the new forums were introduced, minus the GENERAL DISCUSSION forum, they were so prescriptive/specific and often irrelevant there was nowhere to ask general questions. Now it seems, unless we follow your rules of what is acceptable or post in fear of being grammatically corrected continually by your supercilious friend, the GENERAL DISCUSSION forum has become an unfriendly place to generally discuss anything. It's about time the moderators stepped in and took back control of a forum which is for all, not just the petty fiefdom of two. i used to so enjoy posting here (for nearly 5 years) and lurking when I did not, but lately it has become a two man unfunny and never ending show. To everyone else: spend some time in SL, where many of us are friendly and will help answer questions, the utter rudeness and superiority displayed in these forums is not indicative of the SL community generally. I am not interested in what you are sick and tired of Magnus. Your emotional state is yours to deal with. But by all means, expressing that kind of emotionality is sure to get you the sympathy and support you are looking for. I remember those times as well. I was one of the voices calling for a GD Forum. But that did not mean that it was to be a catch-all for every type of thread, as the Answers section was available, as well as the Knowledge Base tab, not to mention the slwiki. Failing that, posters were free to post questions in the relevant sections, as noted in the CG. So do not misrepresent the state of affairs. They are not MY rules Magnus. And the initiative was sanctioned by the Community Manager. Though the mods have become rather lax of late in doing their job of removing inappropriate threads from the GD. I guess the lack of oversight has led to apathy. As far as grammar etc are concerned, I do not make an issue of it unless the OP or poster themselves draw attention to it by making ludicrous claims of proficiency. I too have asked the mods to take control of the forums and do their job directing offending posters to the proper areas for their queries in one of the last pm's I sent to them after they pulled one of my posts, apparently to no avail. I also enjoy(ed) posting here as long as the experience is not ruined by the sanctimonious whingeing of a few intent on condoning violations of the CG I posted above. I enjoy a good discussion as most here do, let's just make sure that they are actually discussions. You will notice that the OP did not initiate one but merely wanted answers. And as I pointed out to Lasky, I have been nothing but friendly, even in the face of some nasty remarks, to which she was forced to agree, and depending on your memory, you would as well. While the evidence is by and large gone, I can be rather vitriolic. <chuckles> To be clear, I have no problem with people coming to the forums to ask their questions, I just think they should be doing it in the appropriate place.

Suki Hirano wrote: LlewLlwyd wrote: I don't want an L, but I'll buy an X or a J if you have any. I'm losing to my wife at Scrabble [tm] at the moment, so I am willing to make a pretty high bid. /Fail. Next time try harder pls. Derek Torvalar wrote: Also, you think I haven't already used the answers search? From the Community Guidelines. Do you know where to find those perchance? Or would you like me to tell you that too. Off Topic Content: Please keep your commentary relevant to the discussion and within the format that the forum, board or question and answer area require. (For example, in the Answers section, please follow the Q&A format of the discussion.) Content that is blatantly off topic is not permitted. You may also not post regarding subjects that do not relate to Second Life except in the General forum discussion board.

Wrong area. Try here---->

LlewLlwyd wrote: HarrisonMcKenzie wrote: Canada is a first world country. Please can you provide verification of this, Derek, or perhaps Laskya. Hmmm, let me see. Industrial.... Capitalist... Developed... Wealthy...(well some are) I think that covers it.

HarrisonMcKenzie wrote: Yes. Scholar. I have a university degree in Japanese language and culture, spent 3 years in religious studies, practiced Buddhism in a temple, spent 7 years event planning for cultual groups, networked with employees at the Japanese Consulate and a community association, have traveled twice to Japan, and am an English language teacher. Yes, I am a Japanese cultural scholar. And do NOT use that racist **bleep** tone with me, because that is exactly what I am calling into question. As soon as someone says Japan, everyone assumes they are some Naruto loving virgin with no friends, and I have no gone and proven exactly why no one wants to talk with to the OP for having a Japanese name. It is because some people on the internet are petty, racist, elitist dicks who want nothing more than to crap oin other people for having interests. Because those who can, do, and those who can't teach? Perhaps you do not understand what the word 'scholar' means? It usually requires a published body of work. Have you published anything of note that others might then point to and say "That is an excellent body of scholarship?" Merely having a degree and a few years experience working within an industry does not qualify you as a scholar. There is nothing racist in my tone at all. Rather I am calling into question your qualifications, which I deem to be insufficient to warrant the term 'scholar'. The term scholar is typically an honourific bestowed upon someone by acknowledged members of the community in which they practise. Perhaps you should get out your dictionary and give us the Japanese translation for 'hubris'.

LaskyaClaren wrote: The Community Guidelines seem reasonably specific and detailed, although there is bound to be a subjective element in the judgement of things such as "flaming." How often have you had someone who is not a mod cite these in responding to you? Not very often, I'd bet. I'm not sure what to make of the fact that the only really substantive replies I've had in this thread about the nature of trolling are from the two regulars here most likely to be characterized as "trolls" by others in this community (vide. Londyn8, Bobbie, Cerise, SYNBOD, Heart, LondieMonroe, et al.). Possibly you and Mr. Llong are the exceptions to what I am talking about, however, because I think you have both gone out of your way to set yourselves up as "outsiders" here. Today? That is a bet you would lose. ;-)

LaskyaClaren wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: I like to differentiate between "derails" and possibly fruitful and interesting digressions. Perhaps, again, we too often leap to unwarranted conclusions about the intent and value of so-called "derails"? One would then necessarily question the nature of the fruit you are trying to harvest. Again, it becomes a question of General or Specific. Value judgements are irrelevant. Either of those presupposes the deliberate violation of some kind of code that the accused does, or should, know about. Most online communities have no such "code" in an accessible form. So, determining the unwritten norms that govern how a community behaves becomes an act of interpretation on the part of the poster. It would be like not having written laws, but arguing that a criminal should have known by hanging around long enough that this or that was against what a community generally allowed. That seems to imply something that goes well beyond 'due diligence" from the putative troll. And again, it suggests that the troll is only a troll because she or he doesn't fit in with the norms exhibited by other members of the community, rather than an intent to violate specific codes. I disagree, as 'most' online communities do indeed have codes of conduct. Whether they are readily accessible may be of question and is probably determined more by the abilities of each individual to navigate. The codes themselves may be open to interpretation which depends of course on the ability to concisely present them in a manner that communicates their intent. It isn't an easy task to write in concrete language and as is demonstrated here every day, most are obstinately opposed to adhering to its content, preferring instead to behave in childishly defiant behaviour characterizing emotional dysregulation. It took me some searching to find the community guidelines for this place. I doubt very much that any but a very few fairly frequent posters have ever read them. So arguably they don't explain the phenomenon that I've tried to describe. Your last comment kind of embodies the sort of subjective response to other people's posts that I've also been describing. But it also raises an interesting question: if the majority of posters don't adhere to the written "rules," in what sense are the written rules a valid description of the social interactions in that place? Really? The link is posted at the top of the page under 'Community Guidelines', although it might not have always been there. I usually get the link sent to me when the mods deign to provide me with a notification when they pull one of my posts. I agree that very few have ever read them and of those even less probably don't understand them or how to apply them they are so badly written or ill-conceived. They are not meant to be descriptions of what occurs but boundaries and expectations of what should transpire.

Bobbie Faulds wrote: Not everyone has good searching skills. To use the answer section, you have to know what question to ask. I've used it and asked what i thought was a straightforward question and nothing. I've had to rephrase several times to get an answer out of it. So, the player comes to the forum to ask a question of those that are more experienced. Instead of help, some have chosen to be boorish and snarky. SL is like a huge store. Many times I've gone in looking for something and it's not where I expect it to be but someplace where I'd least expect it. For instance, where are the marshmallows in your store? Some have them with candy, some have them with the hot chocolate mixes, some have them with the baking stuff. Where are the jars of Better than Boullion (I much prefer this to boullion cubes for sauces)? Some have it with the gravy mixes, some have it with the instant soups, some have it with the canned soups. You've looked where you expect it to be, can't find it soooo, you ask an employee at the store. They show you or tell you, they don't point you to the store directory and tell you to find it that way. So, get over yourself. This is the response of an excuse making enabler. I can assure you I do not need an explanation as to why people do things. <chuckles>

LaskyaClaren wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: I like to differentiate between "derails" and possibly fruitful and interesting digressions. Perhaps, again, we too often leap to unwarranted conclusions about the intent and value of so-called "derails"? One would then necessarily question the nature of the fruit you are trying to harvest. Again, it becomes a question of General or Specific. Value judgements are irrelevant. Either of those presupposes the deliberate violation of some kind of code that the accused does, or should, know about. Most online communities have no such "code" in an accessible form. So, determining the unwritten norms that govern how a community behaves becomes an act of interpretation on the part of the poster. It would be like not having written laws, but arguing that a criminal should have known by hanging around long enough that this or that was against what a community generally allowed. That seems to imply something that goes well beyond 'due diligence" from the putative troll. And again, it suggests that the troll is only a troll because she or he doesn't fit in with the norms exhibited by other members of the community, rather than an intent to violate specific codes. I disagree, as 'most' online communities do indeed have codes of conduct. Whether they are readily accessible may be of question and is probably determined more by the abilities of each individual to navigate. The codes themselves may be open to interpretation which depends of course on the ability to concisely present them in a manner that communicates their intent. It isn't an easy task to write in concrete language and as is demonstrated here every day, most are obstinately opposed to adhering to its content, preferring instead to behave in childishly defiant behaviour characterizing emotional dysregulation.

LaskyaClaren wrote: I like to differentiate between "derails" and possibly fruitful and interesting digressions. Perhaps, again, we too often leap to unwarranted conclusions about the intent and value of so-called "derails"? One would then necessarily question the nature of the fruit you are trying to harvest. Again, it becomes a question of General or Specific. Value judgements are irrelevant.

LaskyaClaren wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: The jury may infer intent based upon indirect, circumstantial evidence. Real juries may well do so -- but the burden of proof is supposed to be much higher, and there is a whole systematic scaffolding of the way in which evidence is presented and treated that is, obviously, not present in the Wild West environment of most online communities. And, one could argue (and I'm sure it has been argued) that "criminality" is itself a function of social norms and community standards. Burden of proof is, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for criminal proceedings, and 'based on a preponderance of the evidence' for civil proceedings. How the evidence is presented in the 'Wild West' is wholly dependant on the individual(s) making the accusation so there is bound to be some discrepancy there as not all have the ability to formulate and peresent a case/argument of that nature. However, itemizing the aspects or situations in which the circumstantial evidence has occurred is not all that difficult. I think the point you are trying to make with your discussion is differentiating between General Intent and Specific Intent. PS Good morning, sleep well? What you are describing is surely a much more elaborate process than happens, in practice, in places like this? I don't think that the individuals who comprise online communities "deliberate" in any meaningful fashion, and even more rarely do they discuss. I think the tendency (and I'm sure there are exceptions) is to respond in a pretty unthinking and visceral fashion to posts that violate expectations about content or decorum. I slept very well, thank you, although possibly not long enough. I may need a nap. :-) Not really. True, it is a rarity. That is why it is so refreshing to see it actually occur and why we cultivate those individuals who are capable of that. See my PPS above.

LaskyaClaren wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: The jury may infer intent based upon indirect, circumstantial evidence. Real juries may well do so -- but the burden of proof is supposed to be much higher, and there is a whole systematic scaffolding of the way in which evidence is presented and treated that is, obviously, not present in the Wild West environment of most online communities. And, one could argue (and I'm sure it has been argued) that "criminality" is itself a function of social norms and community standards. Burden of proof is, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for criminal proceedings, and 'based on a preponderance of the evidence' for civil proceedings. How the evidence is presented in the 'Wild West' is wholly dependant on the individual(s) making the accusation so there is bound to be some discrepancy there as not all have the ability to formulate and peresent a case/argument of that nature. However, itemizing the aspects or situations in which the circumstantial evidence has occurred is not all that difficult. I think the point you are trying to make with your discussion is differentiating between General Intent and Specific Intent. PS Good morning, sleep well? PPS And trying to derail this discussion into a debate on the relative merits of Sociological Theory is a classic tactic of the troll. ;P