Freya Mokusei

Haha, the forum literally won't let me talk about Brexit, no matter how much you folks want me to. Everything goes to unmoderated, and there are no likely triggers. I might keep trying, but for now I'm out of energy. Sorry! -- ETA: No, sorry, it's infuriating and I've now wasted two hours.

Pamela Galli wrote: As I have said, if you want to generate a minefield of micro aggressions, knock yourself out, everyone needs a hobby. The problem is when you insist on punishing those who microagress against you. When a professor says the word indigenous should not be capitalized, should people howl for his head on a stake? Even the authors of the paper that originally identified Microaggressions disagrees with instances of them being used to police speech. Microaggressions are a tool used to identify potentially negative connotations within the language we use - a way of labelling something most of us never have to think about. It's a marker, an identifier, a pattern of speech. My opinion is that the uprisings, conflicts and calls to sack staff are occuring as a reflex, and these words are being twisted to suit popular anger, because they're effective (in the same way that calling someone a racist in public is effective). Toward the end of my education, studying Sociology, my class and I were led in a Buddhist prayer by a well-meaning, well-travelled and highly motivated teacher. Although only one pupil complained, the management had to agree that it was against the general principles of secularism within UK schools and that teacher was disciplined. The complaining pupil wasn't religious, or particularly areligious, they just didn't like sociology. (A similar thing happened during Brexit too, British pupils said they needed more time in exams, because of the stress.) When authorities divide people, and when those divisions are most clearly felt, folks will use anything that could give them an advantage to win the war. Even the war of ideas. Pamela Galli wrote: Thank God the U of C has announced they are not going to put up with this kind of totalitarian suppression of speech. I agree universities shouldn't be participating in reducing thoughtful discussion, but disagree that this is what U of C are doing. Drawing a line in the sand and writing an angry headline is on the useless side of possibole actions. I'd be interested to see if U of C are doing anything else to attempt to defuse the very real levels of anger and division felt across their student body. It doesn't have to be as bad as life under Stalin, if it feels bad (or seems comparably bad when put against other options), if it doesn't seem like there's people on your side, then humans under stress will fight back with one tool or another.

I've just now had the capacity to catch up with this thread. I know the fun's probably over, but I've done... okay at articulating my perspectives lately. So maybe one more? This is a fairly close topic to me, for a number of reasons:- I'm a Millenial. I'm progressive (but a skeptic!). I'm (within the last 10 years) university educated. I'm an Individualist. (a word older than 'microaggressions' and 'identity politics' ) I'm also British (home of George Orwell and the blueprint/instruction manual named Nineteen Eighty-Four, which I've read half a dozen times) So in short, I've seen this phenomenon a lot. I've been exposed to it a lot. And (most reservedly) I see the value in it, a lot. Political Correctness is certainly something that exists with measured success. I'll address this one first, because it's the easiest. Human learning used to be easy - it took place in formal schooling systems, and was career focused. Since (primarily) the advent of the Internet, research (esp. social research) has been moving more quickly than ever - many facts once taught in school are now factually or semantically incorrect. Education has seen a massive shift from rote-learning to goal-based learning - it's now accepted that a teacher probably can't accurately dictate facts, but instead their role is to prepare their charges to think critically about information that they receive throughout their lifetimes (naturally, there is some reluctance to teaching in this way, I can only speak for the environments I've experienced). Add to this the global economic instability, forcing retraining and disrupting historically stable markets (e.g. pub closures in the UK, car production in the US). In short, education is now a whole-life activity - for those that want (or need) to keep up. There are other social issues in addition to education: politics of division are now intrinsic to nearly every issue, the growth of the 24-hour newscycle (mostly based on regurgitation and editorialising, rather than adding to the quantity of facts). Everything feels like Marmite - there are no innocent bystanders left, everyone has a for camp, and an against camp, and never shall the two compromise or mix. For me, as a British person, this was typified in the recent Brexit campaign (which I'll skillfully dodge talking about), but for American types it might be more relatable to talk about Hillary vs. Trump. There are third-parties of course, but for each of the two personalities, there's no-one who is ambivilent to either, it's all either unreserved praise or unreserved hatred. There is no middle ground. Division makes compromise hard, turns empathetic situations into zero-sum games where only one party can win. In general, in my opinion, when someone tells me that I'm doing someone a disservice, making assumptions or otherwise unknowningly speaking for someone else - I try to listen and see what I can do differently. If someone tells me that I'm using the wrong word, I'll research and review my choice next time (my goal is to be clear and understood). If someone tells me that my assumptions are perpetuating stereotypes, I'll look into what else I can do to reduce the odds of doing so again (my goal is to promote individual choice, and reduce systemic barriers). If someone tells me that I caused hurt feelings or caused offence with my words without meaning to, I'll review my posts and try again. In this sense, Political Correctness is a red-herring, it's just Correctness. Listening sympathetically, adjusting the way we speak (in order to be clear and also reduce inflammatory/hurtful statements) and critically-analysing the assuptions we make is the rational, level-headed approach to a world that is increasingly in a state of flux, and increasingly without long-held, tried-and-tested authority telling us what's real and what's not. Obviously there are issues of conflation, obviously some newspapers and media sources (Daily Mail! Front and center!) deliberately stoke the fires of division, obviously some people get their approaches wrong, or tackle issues in the wrong order, or everything else that humans have gotten wrong in attempting to create a more cohesive, less monocultured community since language was first developed. I don't know if this is reaching the thread too late, or if it's entirely bone-headed. I hadn't seen more than a couple of voices in this thread who are willing to say "This is my thing", but I appreciate those that see this as a nuanced issue rather than a headline to stand for or against. Maybe my perspective is useful - if so, I'll add more on the more general sensitivity that people think we're seeing. Fun fact though: those that pushback against PC-culture, against whatever name this umbrella cause takes, always do it by using exactly the same pleas to emotion as the "special snowflakes" that they pretend to hate. It is absolutely two sides of the same coin.

Marisa Paule wrote: Freya: I don’t consider myself a victim in the sense you are using the term. Good. Great! This can be a very trying situation, but it could be much worse. As long as you keep taking safe actions, keep listening to sensible advice, and remember to emphasise the ways you can still improve your own wellbeing, you'll get there in the end. I know my posts take odd turns, but I'm encouraged by hearing your perspective. My advice to you (I don't think I've given any directly) would be to investigate the RL laws surrounding you and your ex, and if relevant contact law enforcement - you may even have done this already. Many jurisdictions have laws against stalking and cyberbullying, and they can help create or enforce protection or restraint orders. If this case is negatively affecting your real life (and it sounds like it probably is) then at least registering this issue with your local force can allow officers to keep an eye on the situation and help related services to provide support that could help. Most importantly, don't suffer alone. I wish you the best of luck.

These events are submitted by users and are not policed by LL for authenticity. There's nothing stopping them from being 'fake' (empty, useless) or scammy. Keep looking and you'll certainly get better at spotting them, I don't know what else I can advise.

Now you folks are teaching me. Had no idea you could 'get' from llSetText ORRR that convex hull worked on prim (vs. mesh) linksets. Thanks! <3

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Phil? Freya? Somebody? Make her shut up! Sorry Maddie, that's not how I operate. I don't know if I can make anyone do anything.

UnicornNightmares wrote: “Fear and a desire for control are some of the most natural, instinctive urges humanity has.” Desire for control are actually the worst instincts and urges humanity has These are not mutually exclusive. Phil's already highlighted your error, but to remind you *I* said that nature is not always good; oftentimes, civilisation is better. You claimed that unnatural was a bad thing, and you are wrong. You continue to be wrong in this area, when you say things like "Nature is always trying to evolve into something better." - no, that's not how evolution works. The only certainty with evolution is that nature will end up with something different. Different is not always better, that's why we have Natural Selection (and to a lesser but quicker extent, Artificial Selection) and even then, 'better' is only relevant in regards to an organism being 'better at surviving to pass on the genetic information', no other connotation of the word 'better' applies (especially nothing to do with morality or ethics). This is a dead end. These rest of these posts are a mess of conflating consensual BDSM with actual abuse, and imaginary straw men that have nothing to do with Second Life Search. Sorry, but I'm discarding until a more rational argument appears. The modern western porn industry has issues representing women; who would've guessed that a keyword race-to-the-bottom and desperation to monetise under material capitalism would lead to that. It has similar (but different) issues representing men and non-binary folks too - the nature of the beast that reduces everyone and every activity to commodities. My position remains: tackling issues as low-down the chain as Second Life Search rather than the over-arching driving cause is a waste of time. Repressing (maybe not the word you would use, but definitely the theme of this thread) individuals in SL living out fantasies without inflicting harm on anyone won't achieve any progress against a wider societal issue. Hope this continues to clarify.

Right, that's true too. My concern was that if the OP is making copies, more than a couple will start to cost a lot of land impact very quickly. I expect that the original implementation was a single prim.

Desc will be the easiest. You could wipe ObjectDesc after the TextCode is loaded back into memory after a reset. Something like:- state_entry(){ if(llGetObjectDesc() != "") { TextCode = llGetObjectDesc(); llSetObjectDesc(""); }} Hope this has helped. Good luck!

There's no way to write to a notecard in LSL.

sndbad Ghost wrote: any another way ? There's a couple - Experiences Key-Value system (not an area of mine). A complex option would be sending data to a proper database somewhere on the web. You could load a persistant prim with the TextCode for the 'next' new object, have it distribute info via llRegionSayTo. It's likely that it would require reasonable or significant structural changes to this script to acomplish.

What do you mean by "a drama". No-one can help you if you're not clear. If you're seeing an error message, post it in full. If behaviour has changed, explain this in detail. Include any recent changes to your system (e.g. Windows 10) as you update your question.

sndbad Ghost wrote: i edti this script for change from hover to says script I.. think this answers my first query. sndbad Ghost wrote: its work fine but when i copy opject the says not save what i set this my problem Yeah, it won't. The TextCode variable only exists within the current operating context/state. Once you reset, this data will be lost. You could try storing the contents of TextCode in llSetObjectDesc (and retrieving with llGetObjectDesc). This would survive resets.

Is this the complete script? The one you pasted never fires llSetText - it won't set hovertext of any type. --- In addition, scripts don't 'save' data held in running state. A script reset will wipe data held inside the script unless it's stored somewhere safer, such as object namespace.

No problem!

It's probably here somewhere. I'm looking now, but four eyes are quicker than two... Wiki: List of Unicode characters Wiki: Miscellaneous_Symbols_and_Pictographs (Unicode) ETA: Maybe.... (1F48E / "Gem stone") More info (+built-in copy-paste) here. SCORE - didn't think the forum would be happy with that.

Rhonda Huntress wrote: It just resets the harass/ignore process back to the begining. Ding. There's a reason why prevailing Internet wisdom can be summerised as "Do not feed the trolls", regardless of how victim-blame-y that statement is at face value. Advice in these situations can be channeled in only two directions: Up (to tackle systematic abuse, flaws in privacy) or down (to the individual who was victimised). On the Internet, when you're tacking with the very concrete concepts of modern web economics - 24/7 access, huge amounts of spam, big data collection of personal information, the income inequality and corruption affecting developing countries/economies, the ease of exploiting trade loopholes - affecting change upwards takes a very, very long time (years, decades). Affecting change downward - effectively - can have quick, positive results that immediately protect from further abuse. My perspective - as someone who is moderately active in the field of online security at a corporate level, and as someone who has been harassed, stalked and attacked (both by strangers and by family members, as recently as weeks ago) in real life - is that reducing personal responsibility can only cause more harm in future, risking repeated attacks or reducing them to helpless victim-types either in their own heads or within society (I'm not sure which is worse). This is a view supported by a fair amount of research, but it is only my perspective based on my experiences. The psychological risks of feeling like a victim are signifiant. It hurts to feel powerless, to feel like you have no choice but to leave yourself "exposed" - that whomever is the abuser can return at any moment, and lure you back in again. My grandmother experienced this when she was burgled at home - nowhere felt safe, things that had been hers for 80 years suddenly felt untrustworthy and alien. Absolutely, fixing the systematic flaws that enabled the abusers methods are important, but just as important is equipping the victim to feel secure and safe in the unfortunate event that they're targetted a second time. Most sadly of all, repeat victimisation is a thing - being abused once often increases the likelihood of being abused again. Equipping people with tools to help themselves is not intrinsically harmful, does not definitively depress someone into the role of victimhood. In cases of financial fraud (e.g. phishing) it would be ridiculous to not discuss possible new approaches when receiving phonecalls or Emails asking for money. Fortunately, a lot of advice for victims is out there - and it accurately reduces cases of fraud. In the case of my grandmother, the police didn't just investigate the crime - they gave her better locks and showed her how to make her home look more "lived in" at all hours of the day. I get that this is a sensitive issue, and that my patterns of speech don't make me sound like a sensitive person. There are folks better equipped to handle situations like this, but to the extent that I can help, I keep trying to do so effectively. This isn't about me, I'm just explaining the contrast between approaches, and where the psychology meets the road. (Additionally, the OP hasn't been back for 24 hours.)

Merylimperil wrote: You seemed to miss the part in her post where she plainly stated that this abuse she's been receiving was possibly self inflicted. I did not. Determining that something could be construed as victim-blaming is not "a fact", I don't understand what you mean. I'm going to let the victim decide which advice is most useful in lowering harm. I don't feel that you're doing a good job of speaking for anyone, and this thread could be better served by listening than dictating. Hope this helps.

Believe me, if you check out Maddie's post history you'll see an unending fountain of sympathy for the victims of attacks like this. It spans years. Actual years. There are practical solutions for both law enforcement and in-world moderation. In the first instance and to reduce the likelihood of these events occuring in future, however, there will inevitably be action that the victim can choose to take. Systems take time to change, and Second Life has been around long enough by now that experienced users can thoroughly predict the Lab's response. If we left it to the system to change the way it works without stating possible options to victims, this would cause harm too. Linden Lab - for better or worse - has decided where it sits on this issue. Stating these options doesn't assign blame. It doesn't reduce sympathy. This isn't zero sum, there are routes toward less harm that also include some change on the victims part.

Nah, go nuts. I run a few channel 0 listeners for recoding/reinterpretting chat and running analytics on the same. I even have one attached to my avatar - against all advice. I imagine Rolig would do backflips just thinking about it. For just one toy you're fine. The risk is when you have a lot going on, or lots of automated messages going on at the same time. Opening and closing the listens (if you don't need them all the time) will also help. I don't notice any chat lag, and I'm obsessive enough that I'm always watching sim performance. To be (almost) sure: Run a channel 1 listener for a while with an llOwnerSay loopback, telling you everything it hears. If you get less than 1 trigger per minute, you'll be adding negligable lag to the simulator. The first test listens perform is against channel - nothing else on your channel =/= no inherent lag. Mostly the advice to avoid channel 0-9 is for noobs and people who don't really have valid use-cases for utilising such low channel IDs. If there's a functional purpose then it's acceptable. Oh, and remember that Channel 1 is spammed a lot by OnDuty.

Rhonda Huntress wrote: 00100000 Phil Deakins wrote: 001000000 I've got my eye on you two. :matte-motes-evil-invert:

I did! It does! Once I find something more trustworthy, more able to make predictions about reality then I will trust that. Until then though, I quite like that science keeps changing its mind. It leads to good discussion. (And I probably wouldn't trust something 'infallable' anyway)

Why is this LL's problem? No software platform lasts forever. This is especially true for buggy, security-flaw-ridden software. Quicktime's death was not quick, had been coming for years and in my opinion was way overdue. The closest parallel from Microsoft's side (Quicktime was a combatant in the MSFT/Apple wars) - ActiveX - was put out to pasture in 2015. Another third-party combatant, RealMedia, died much earlier. Support for both other contenders in SL is zero, as you can imagine. "The industry" has moved to HTML5 and other technologies that run directly in the browser (plus a couple that don't, including MSFT's new offering, Silverlight). LL's browser should try to support these, I suppose, but really I don't see how they can be held responsible for providers of old content that still stream Quicktime formats. We go forwards.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Safe, sane and consensual should apply to any relationship, not just bdsm. ... http://www.livescience.com/34832-bdsm-healthy-psychology.html Interesting study popped up today: Participating in a Culture of Consent May Be Associated With Lower Rape-Supportive Beliefs Sometimes things aren't always what they look like, and especially aren't what social conservatives would have us believe.