Friday, April 10, 2009

if you don't say it wrong, then that says it right

Sindy Tsure has pulled together a grab-bag list of all Linden responses (on the forums, and in other articles); I don't have the patience or, frankly, the desire to read through it all now, so that mention is as much for me to read through later, as for anyone reading along.

Originally Posted by Brenda Connolly
I'm not giving up my SSN, DL or passport number just to play what still is essentially a game/entertainment.

From my understanding, we are not asking for either your social security number, drivers license or passport number.

Good, very good. ...So, err, what will you be asking for, then?

Shockwave Yareach answers:

YOU are not, no.

Aristotle, your partner for age verification, DOES ask for this information. When I verified, I used my DL number as there is no way in hell I'll give out the other two. And while I think some of the complaints about verification are a bit over the top, asking people for their SSN or their passport is asking for too much.


So here's a fun conundrum for me: I have an SSN, I'm informed it's illegal for me to give it out for purposes of personal verification (even though many companies--cable, water, electric, rental applications, lease agreements, and the U.S. military routinely ask for SSNs to be given out). I don't have a passport number; I was too young to need one the first time I traveled out of the country, and I didn't need one the last time I went. Lastly, I don't drive.

So what number, precisely, am I supposed to provide?

Miso Susanowa said:

please repeat after me:

BUSINESS DEMANDS STABILITY ABOVE ALL.

YOU WOULD STILL HAVE A TECHNICALLY UNACCEPTABLE PRODUCT FOR BUSINESS NEEDS.

So please... before you continue focusing on a pipe dream, consider fixing and stabilizing your platform before you ever think about such third- and fourth-tier problems. Your main problem with courting business is the instability of the platform, not the occasional pink flying wangosaurus.


As amusing an image as that pink flying thing is--and believe me, it is--this is dead-on accurate. To truly encourage business, corporations, universities, to come in and use SL as they want it to be used, needs a radical rebuild of the client and the server system. The down side of this, of course, is to effect that sort of change, it just might involve lessening user conduct. To create the "predictable" experience that the Lindens keep hoping for, wide-scale, might mean uniform equalization: the same textures, the same surface patterns, on everything.

Loss of creativity: high. Stability: improved most likely.

It's not my way out, but it's a way out.

Lindal Kidd makes a small point:

The people who think sex has no place in a virtual world have no understanding of human nature. A virtual world without sex isn't a "world" at all...it's just a 3D chatroom. That's why SL is so superior to efforts like IMVU.

Amen.

Mezz Lykin goes back to the fur question:

So..... you're saying furries *are* considered inherently sexual, even when modestly clothed and say or do nothing sexual in any way and must be confined to mature areas?

And how furry is furry? Are nekos considered furry if they only have ears and tails, what about nekos who have human body shapes, but skins with tiger or other big cat fur patterns over their bodies.


Again, this detours us, but I admit, this is part of my problem with the SL neko community.

I, personally, believe I count as a fur when I'm neko. Why? Because most often those skins have painted fur patterns, visible stripes or dots, and, while I don't have prim paws, I do have whiskers and slit-pupil eyes.

How'ver, with many, many neko women on the grid...they wear smooth human skins, and tag on ears and tails. And usually, the tails are that particular bound-at-the-base style, the very fluffy fur depending from a braceleted charmed construction that includes toys, barbed wire, bandages, piercings, metal rings, seasonal attachments...the list goes on ad nauseum.

Generally these are the same women you see with the ginormous legwarmer "boots"--the ones that end in either huge platform shoes, or huge platformed feet--and pierced ears--while their human ears are showing--and in between wear fishnet tops and huge arm bracers and microskirts.

Now, there are a lot of variations in what makes a catgirl, or a catboi--and I'm honest enough I'll admit there are nekos on the grid who manage the tails/ears/smooth skin look excellently.

But it's not for me. I'm not a smooth-skinned neko. I don't just have the affectation of bejeweled ears and a twitchy tail attached to my everyday outfit. Though it's short hair, it's still hair. Which makes me a fur.

How'ver, this gets us nowhere on our plodding journey towards the definition of "adult". We shall, therefore, move on.

Ginette Pinazzo adds the next to last comment for tonight, followed by an intriguing question in another direction entirely.

Miss Pinazzo said:

It is morally wrong. Beyond business...beyond finance...beyond statistics.

People are not statistics, despite what so many out there seem to say.
They have hearts and souls, they work and they love and they cry.
They invest their beings into this.

If I hear one more person write 'yes, some will get hurt or leave....but things will get back to normal...', then I hope that person realizes they are dismissing the importance of people, their time and their hopes and dreams.


I can add nothing to that but wholehearted aggrement.

And WhimseyCallie Pegler winds things up at the bottom of page 63:

I wonder if The Carnival of Doom would have to change it's flag to adult for violence and would that result in all of the rezzable sims being flagged adult? I mean what a shame if only verified accounts could check out the greenies or the Tunnel of Light.

Excellent question. Doubt it will be answered, but excellent question. If the violence in the Carnival counts as "adult" then we're all in trouble.

In the meantime, I'm still forcing myself to continue through the thread. Maybe a music post tomorrow. Just to break things up.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have to thank you again for reporting on this issue and all its facets. You have proven to be a reliable source of information and, thus, you have become my sole source on this issue. You're doing a great job of exposing a very important influence on the future of SL. I appreciate it very much and I'm sure I'm not alone in this regard.

VTY,
Elspeth Woolley

Emilly Orr said...

*blinks*

I am thankful, believe me, I am. But trust me when I say I am biased in this, incredibly so. By all means, read other things; there's an entire side of this argument that I'm either ignoring willfully or poking fun at, depending on the day (and the commenter).

But thank you.

Anonymous said...

That's ok. Possibly the reason you seem so objective to me is that we share the same bias. Isn't that how that works? :)

Censorship is a dangerous slippery slope. My opinion.

And thanks again.

Els

Emilly Orr said...

And it also never works. Prohibition didn't work for the same reason.

Suppressing things doesn't make them go away, it makes them stronger, fiercer, and stranger--and usually in no good way. Accepting things, deciding what each of us can't and can live with, and understanding that those values may change, person to person...and explaining why on all sides...that has a much better chance of working.

It's not that there aren't social ills on SL. There are. But trying to hide them, along with the examples where viewed "deviance" is embraced with understanding and responsibility, just sets person against person, and then there's fragmenting and chaos.

That's not the way. But it seems to be the way the Lindens are determined to go.

Magdalena Kamenev said...

Miss Orr,

To reiterate Miss Woolley's comments, thank you very very much. Your diligence to this topic, and presenting so many questions/topics by others (including those you don't fully agree with) makes this series of posts a great digest for those of us who aren't following along as much as they'd like (or should).

As to your q:

So what number, precisely, am I supposed to provide?My typist was one of the rare few natives of the Golden State who did not get a license the second upon turning 16. Until she did manage to schedule and pass the driving test, she was issued a state identification card, which had the same biometric data, photo, watermarking, etc. And I don't know about your state, but here, such IDs must be treated just the same as driver's licenses. Assuming you or anyone else have such an analogous card in lieu of a driver's license, I don't see how Aristotle could reasonably reject it.

As for the furry question ... my head is in my hands, agog. This may require a post on my blog so that I do not clutter up your forum with my ramblings.