fire one more torpedo, baby, watch the kitchen sink

(Roleplay entry, a'course.)

It had been a normal day of checking in at Haven, unpacking some lab equipment in the new orbital lab above the moon, and I'd just flown down to the main town to check in with the store. And then...



What the HELL?!?

I didn't even know anything until Justine shrieked, because she'd heard something pound, HARD, against the back wall of the store. We checked the security feeds and found one of the snow snakes battering its head against the back wall to get in to us.



Which is when we both realized we didn't have our Anti-Arc ankle bracelets on. Apparently they are that voracious.



The only plus side? I think it got its head wedged between the corner of the transport crate and the back wall of the store.



And this is when I learned, again, that my little Derringer-strength palm pistol is USELESS because I'm still a crap shot.



In utter frustration, I pulled open the Preferences menu and pored over everything with a fine-tooth comb, and finally, I found something that might help--under the Mouselook sub-menu, there was a little tick box to allow crosshairs to be shown. Well...hell, that wasn't on already, I'd known that, I just hadn't known where to look before!



I ticked the box and crept closer, terrified, while the snake flailed in frustration trying to get free, and went into mouselook again. Missed with the first shot but the second shot--BANG!

I'd done it! I'd killed a snek!

I need gin.

what they can't comprehend must meet its end

You ever walk into a place in SL and you swear, you can smell the incense and that particular fragrance of old books, and dust on stone?



Yeah. Helel's Apotheca is like that.

Seen at Aenigma, sort of a post-apoc event for all comers:



Seems legit.

And font butts are a thing? I never knew!

In the meantime, part the first, an observant reader may have noticed I've been changing things, just a wee bit, around the wee blog. The banner was done in ninety minutes; tracking down all the little charity logos, though....We're moving into the second week. I am beginning to regret being the charity pimp that I am.

How'ver, they will--sloooowly--change, as I get them done. So, expect that.

In the meantime, part the second, something completely different! *cough* This chat opened with folks complaining about a beggar at the event the group's about. But oh Lord, it did not stay there:

[06:22] Mxxxxx Exxxxxxx: where is this group from ? I'm not even a member ! how did you even get me involved ?

Meet our protagonist, Little Miss Clueless. She's a DJ in SL, so I will go out on that limb and say that usually, that implies a working brain.

[06:22] Pxxxx Sxxxxxxxx: you have to be a member [Oxxx]..

(I should also add, the 'O' mentioned above is also our protagonist. It's her display name.)

[06:22] Pxxxx Sxxxxxxxx: otherwise you can't see the chat at all
[06:22] Rxxxxxx Rxxx: you aren't involved

[06:22] Pxxxx Sxxxxxxxx: and its just general chat that's all lol
[06:23] Pxxxxxxxxxx Sxxxxxxx: ahhhh [group] chat in the morning... *sips her coffee*
[06:23] Emilly Orr: I mean...unless you're typing in a coma

I mean...am I wrong?

[06:23] sxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: someone that stupid doesnt know there a member of a group and believes someone added them to it lol

Welll...at the risk of throwing stones at my own glass house, 'stupid' is a tad bit harsh. But still. Unless one has their account hacked, or for some bizarre reason, a Linden logs in as that person, no one can add anyone to groups who isn't in that group already on their own. It's not like someone searches someone's name online and grabs their email from that; the system is direct. One avatar, one click from that avatar, nothing else works.

[06:25] Mxxxxx Exxxxxxx: why am I even in this chat

Well, that's your issue, Clueless, not ours.

[06:25] Rxxxxxx Rxxx: quit
[06:25] Rxxxxxx Rxxx: Yes you is.
[06:25] Jxxxxx Dxxxxxxx: This is for [group] [Oxxx], you likely added it when there were birthday gifts :)
[06:25] Rxxxxxx Rxxx: Just gone eat ya popcorn and enjoy the show.
[06:25] sxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: yes you do or else you wouldnt be able to talk in it rofl
[06:25] Rxxxx Mxxxxx: yes you do [Oxxx]
[06:25] Emilly Orr: 'Stupid' may be reaching, but you'll notice she hasn't said anything since

My bad, here--I'd gotten distracted running something else down in world, so had missed she actually had made another comment.

[06:25] Lxxxx Rxxxxxx: You HAVE to be in the group to see the chat

Pretty much, yeah.

[06:25] Mxxxxx Exxxxxxx: [listing what I can only assume is her UUID for some reason?] if you are referring to yourself, this is your problem

So...wait. Are you saying you are the problem here? Uh...nice...self-burn??

[06:26] gxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: ok play nice

I accept some culpability for the (limited) amount of drama past this point; in my defense, there was a bit of chat lag happening.

[06:26] Rxxxx Mxxxxx: lol too early for this
[06:26] Emilly Orr: I take that back, she has.
[06:26] jxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: OR leave the group
[06:26] Mxxxxx Exxxxxxx: [sxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx] if you are referring to yourself, this is your problem

Wait....so...it wasn't her OWN UUID, but...someone else's?? And who the hell is [Sxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx]??

[[And on reflection, editing this--how is she smart enough to figure out how to link someone's UUID figures in a group chat, but idiot enough that she can't figure out she's in the group she's typing in? I'm confused.]]

[06:26] jxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: that's pretty easy
[06:27] sxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: [oxxx] how about you leave the group and shut the chat solved your problem for ya
[06:27] Mxxxxx Exxxxxxx: I'm not in the group ! I was just joined by a conference chat

I have no idea what she's dithering about, but she's wrong.

[06:27] gxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: oh lord too early for this...closes chat and goes to make a cuppa aaargh!!!
[06:27] sxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: rofl too funny
[06:27] Emilly Orr: You. Are. In. The group. Your. Name. Is. In group membership.
[06:27] Emilly Orr: I checked.

I can't make it more clear.

[06:27] Axxxx Axxx: Hello everyone! Keep it nice :)
[06:27] Rxxxxxx Rxxx: lawl
[06:28] Rxxxxxx Rxxx: SL is live nowadays
[06:28] sxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: just too funny this person is adamant shes not in this group shes in a conference rofl
[06:28] Yxxxxxxx Cxxxxx: oh [Jxxxx] - you fed the beast

Well, in fairness, so did I.

[06:28] Oxxxx Sxxxxxxx: everyone makes mistakes
[06:28] Rxxxxxx Rxxx: [Oxxxx]. Hush.
[06:28] Lxxxx Rxxxxxx: She is simply confused, that's all. Leave her be
[06:28] Rxxxxxx Rxxx: They knew before hand.
[06:29] Emilly Orr: Well, also keep in mind, she's saying she's not in the group, in the group chat, of the group she's a member of...

I mean, just process that for a bit. She's complaining about receiving the group chat...in the group chat. Recursive beyond all reason.

[06:29] sxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: when your that adamant its not a mistake its pathological

[06:29] Mxxxxx Exxxxxxx: the groups link this post in the chat anyone 

Uh, no, again, Clueless--you can't automatically get signed up for a group, first, and second, someone posting a link to a group in that group won't auto-join anyone to that group. Doesn't work that way.

[06:29] Rxxxxxx Rxxx: Tis person been in SL 10 years.

I know. It's somewhat depressing.

[06:29] Oxxxx Sxxxxxxx: and so is picking at people for fun

[06:29] Rxxxxxx Rxxx: Don't click on random links

[06:29] bxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: I blame [Kxxxxxxx]  

The K-name mentioned was the beggar who started the chat off, that I didn't bother including, for reference.

[06:29] Axxxx Axxx: I think everyone made their point clear. So I suggest let it be and go back to shopping ;)
[06:30] Jxxxxx Dxxxxxxx: Just mute them guys. Block is your friend ;) Move on, have a great day :)
[06:30] Rxxxxxx Rxxx: Picking? Did you come late to the convo [Oxxxx]?
[06:30] sxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: lol
[06:30] Jxxxxxx Dxxxx: mistakes yes, but a mistake would have been I am not in the group... look to see if you are in the group... oh wait.. I guess I am..oops

Yeah. That. Exactly.

[06:30] sxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: rofl
[06:30] Oxxxx Sxxxxxxx: moving on
[06:31] Rxxxxxx Rxxx: Let me hush. Been an avid supported of [group] since day one. Moving on. Love you all. Have a blassed day hunny.
[06:31] sxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: [group] Update Group is the link to this group as your link is nothing and again did not work
[06:32] Mxxxxx Exxxxxxx: fine I'm not in this group

The evidence given says otherwise.

[06:32] Axxxx Axxx: Is there anyone who hasn't been to [group's adult event] yet?
[06:32] Rxxxxxx Rxxx: Ooo i haven't [Axxxx].
[06:32] sxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: yes you are and now your a troll ok all tc ttfn and have a great day

Again, general cluelessness does not automatically make one a troll.

[06:32] Axxxx Axxx: [Oxxx], I will IM you. Anyone else, let it be.

[06:32] Emilly Orr: You're still talking here, so I'd say you are, but it's a great conspiracy theory.

[06:33] Emilly Orr goes back to shopping :)

[06:33] Axxxx Axxx: enjoy :)))

[06:33] Rxxxxxx Rxxx: That was a nice break from the mundane routine. 

For, uh, certain definitions of 'nice'. [[And second note from the Editrix, post-publishing--there's a code glitch somewhere and I haven't had coffee yet and I'm not finding it, so feck it, it's getting republished with gaps.]]

[06:33] Lxx Sxxxxxxxxx: yeah taxi there but indens ?
[06:33] Lxx Sxxxxxxxxx: wh can gice me indens s i can buy ctyhes
[06:33] Lxx Sxxxxxxxxx: :))
[06:34] Lxx Sxxxxxxxxx: i wrte with my feet
[06:34] Lxx Sxxxxxxxxx: mgg

Uh...what??

[06:34] Rxxxxxx Rxxx: Oh no. They are infiltrating the group now
[06:34] sxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: and block

[06:35] Axxxxx Mxxxxxx giggles

[06:36] axxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: hey you get back here and share [jxxx]!

[06:36] Jxxxxx Dxxxxxxx runs around throwing 500L at everyone

[06:36] Emilly Orr: I wish. 

Though who am I kidding? I'd just spend it on furniture.

[06:37] sxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rxxxxxxx: if ya just giving it away over ere i'll take a piece of dat pie lol

And that's where people finally saw everything from the mods and backed off. Still don't know if Clueless got the hint, at all, that she's actually in the group she's in. Some peoples' kids...

you can't be sure of any situation, something could change and then you won't know (part three)

(Continued from part two.)

Again, we're pretty much picking up mid-conversation: read part one and part two if you don't know what's being discussed.

[9:46 PM] Iron: I try to avoid dictating without power in part because it implies I have authority over the person, and will definitely more often lead to them being angry and ignoring rather than considering what I have to say. That's how I react when someone dictates to me without power, anyway. I have authority issues about being clear who has power over me and on what subjects so I very strongly react negatively to people powerlessly dictating over me that way, heh.
[9:46 PM] Iron: If I have to be dismissive to use the term, which I may have to be in some ways, then so be it. But I'm not dismissing them entirely, I am using the term to say that I am paying attention to and looking at that group of people. I am dismissing the individuality of each person because it is necessary to do so to address the overall intent as a whole. I cannot state my opinion about each single person involved because there are thousands, all with nuances and I am a single being.

That's a good point too. Part of what we do as humans is label. We pick out patterns, we identify by general traits, it's how we're wired to exist in the world. So to a certain extent, categorization will always be a part of who we are as humans.

[9:46 PM] Iron: As a note, I find it better, if possible, to use an example that is counter to one's usual opinion sometimes so as to not contribute to just always painting the "other" group as always the villains. So maybe like, looking at people that were dismissing those that are boycotting Gillette or something would have worked better, but sure.
[9:46 PM] Iron: I am certain a number of people dismissed the Chik-Fil-A boycott after looking into it and finding they disagreed with it. I'd still eat there, if friends were going there. I'd hesitate before going there on my own, there are less problematic chicken places to eat at easily available, but that's just me. The chicken is probably still good and so are most of the people that work there. But see, that's not me dismissing the issue, that's me thinking about it and deciding the strict boycott doesn't make sense to my choices for me personally so I know it's a bit different. In this case I understand people that do boycott it because some money will still support the owner or whatnot.

Our perspectives, our learning, our observations, form our lives. If we never get out of our insular spaces, we don't learn about the larger world. And at times, that reaching out gets us harmed, or makes us angry, or makes us sad. All we can do at that point is use our own experiences to evaluate the new experiences and see if they can integrate in a meaningful way.

Of course, it's easier for me to say that, because I'm for the Chick-fil-A boycott. We don't order from Papa John's for similar reasons. I've only gone into a WalMart once, under duress, and I deliberately bought nothing. I have never bought anything from Starbuck's. I'm kind of pro-boycott, because hitting corporations in the finances works much better than writing letters, calling them, leaving messages, protesting outside their offices. If enough people refuse to buy from Business A, most of the time, Business A reconsiders. At the very least, Businesses B and C will perk up and say to the protesters, hey, WE aren't like THEM, come buy OUR things instead.

Though all of this is a longer-winded way to say I don't really understand the big divisive deal over Chick-fil-A. Simple biscuits are easy to make, the secret to Chick-fil-A chicken in the first place is pickle juice, and their "secret sauce" is pretty similar to other large chains. So what's the big deal? Just make it at home. Easy, done, no reason to ever go into the chain again.

[9:46 PM] Iron: Dismissal of individuality is necessary when addressing large issues. It has to be done. I am not trying to say outrage culture is a thing and so it can be dismissed. I'm trying to say outrage culture shouldn't be a thing, but it is, and I wish it could be ignored and dismissed but it isn't. It is too loud. It is a bad thing, in my opinion, that is too loud and not easily dismissed. I am very much not dismissing it by saying so, I am addressing it.
[9:46 PM] Iron: Lumping people is needed. I recognize they are individuals at their core, but the culture, the movement, is a larger than individual thing that exists and I need to reference its existence using words to do so.

Because again, it's easy for us to lump an entire group with certain traits into one box, than address each of them as individuals.

[9:46 PM] Iron: I don't hate the people involved in it. I don't like hating people. I can hate general movements but not easily hate people. Which is also part of why I wish people were more selective about including a movement as part of their identity but that's a whole different thing.
[9:46 PM] Iron: I should note that there are liberal based shows that will use deceptive methods to stoke hatred as well. But less of them, in my experience, for sure.

Oh, absolutely. No one's hands are clean where identity politics are concerned. All sides have done harm.

[9:46 PM] Iron: I'm not convinced that's true, that he'd never work again, especially if he never went through with it. I mean, there are black celebrities who claim to have shot someone and have successful careers after, although I'm thinking of rappers. That's always seemed odd to me how that type of violence is celebrated in that realm.
[9:47 PM] Iron: But point is, you assume he'd never have a job again. If so, that sucks. I'd be against that as well. Moreso than I'd be against the way they are treating Liam currently, because that's harsher than how they are treating Liam. I don't think I've indicated that treating a black man the same way, or worse, than they are treating a white man would be okay. Both are wrong.
[9:47 PM] Iron: Also getting shot isn't the same as being raped but that might be besides the point.
[9:47 PM] Fermium: Getting raped is worst.
[9:47 PM] Fermium: But that's subjective.
[9:48 PM] Fermium: They are both heinous crimes.
[9:49 PM] Iron: Yep yep. Just wasn't entirely sure why the switch from rape to being shot, for the example.

I know I made the shift earlier in discussing mass shooters because it's easier to come up with codified examples. (I think I say this later on this conversation as well. I believe the same reasoning applies here with the switch to being shot.

[9:50 PM] Emilly Orr: This thing that [Platinum] said--"people just being outraged and only caring about the outrage". That's it. That's it exactly.
[9:51 PM] Emilly Orr: I'm not talking about the people who are genuinely hurt by this, the ones who are thinking, man, I looked up to this guy as an actor/friend/date/whatever, and now feel confused as to how they SHOULD feel about him and his actions.
[9:51 PM] Emilly Orr That, I get.
[9:51 PM] Emilly Orr: I'm talking about that large stripe of people--and right now, it's being seen in ALL sections of the political spectrum--that are outraged by things just to BE outraged by things.

Okay, hold up for a moment, me. Am I saying this because I'm thinking subconsciously of the incel community? Especially the virulently self-loathing, and misogynistic, "black pill" contingent? There is a group that is part of that community that does get outraged just to get outraged. They seem to live to be outraged at "horrible" women and "attractive" men. Am I just thinking of that when I'm using the term "outrage culture" and "outrage warriors"?

[9:53 PM] Emilly Orr: The switch from rape to being shot is because I see how easy it would be to get to that place. It's terrifying. It SHOULD be terrifying. Shooters were the easiest example I had, but really, it's anyone who temporarily steps away from empathy. For any reason. Anyone who looks at an entire race of people and can say honestly they are not human, they're animals, they don't deserve whatever they have because they aren't "like us". Whomever we identify "us" as.
[9:54 PM] Fermium: This all started because I stated that my dislike is of people who get outraged about people being outraged.

True. And it expanded into a larger conversation from there.

[9:54 PM] Fermium: And I stand by that. I find that people are too quick to call someone's or some group's outrage 'misplaced' or an 'overreaction'. Even listening and parsing what has been said by everyone else here, I'm still getting that same feeling, though you are all my friends and I know you better than that.

[9:54 PM] Fermium: But it is a dismissal, and in a sense it is a refusal. A refusal to understand why they are outraged and instead just say 'They are looking to be outraged' 

And that is also a good point. Am I seeking a way to dismiss a group of people, myself? Am I stepping away from my own empathy about individuals to cull the herd?

[9:54 PM] Fermium: It took me ten minutes of searching to find comments and views that explain why people are outraged about Liam. And they have a point.

They do, yes. (And I  can't figure out the coding in the above quotations that make it look like two separate statements, and I'm giving up trying.)

[9:54 PM] Emilly Orr: Liam did it. The Black Israelite movement, holy hells, that's how they TRAIN their people to interact with others--that only black people in their movement are human and worthy. All whites are animals, all blacks who work with whites are Uncle Toms, anyone else is to be ignored as nonentities.
[9:55 PM] Emilly Orr: And that's fair, [Fermium], I thought I scrolled back to the beginning of things, but apparently I didn't. Not the first time this has happened with long discussions.
[9:56 PM] Iron: Still reading, but I meant the switch from rape to being shot in [Fermium]'s example of Denzel. But that doesn't take away from what you said there or anything.
[9:56 PM] Emilly Orr: Ah. Which is apparently part of what I missed.

Which is also slightly confusing, because, when I went back in the chat to capture all of this, there wasn't much beyond the Denzel allegory, so...I did tackle it from the beginning, as I'd originally thought, I'd just somehow missed the Denzel reference. No clue why.

[9:56 PM] Iron: np
[9:58 PM] Fermium: Oh. Because it was relevant to the broader topic of racism. The example I used is not uncommon for black people in America. White people get away with a lot. I was originally going to use Police, which would have been just as valid, but went for a more random schmo. [10:02 PM] Iron: Ah I see.

Pretty much. The police-as-allegory would also have been a good example, but that is only partially racism, the rest, I truly believe, involves the rise of Homeland Security and the militarization of local police forces.

[10:04 PM] Iron: But I do need to be clear that while I am against the treatment of Liam, and would be against the same treatment of a black man in his situation. More against it if the treatment was worse, which it might very well unfortunately be.
[10:04 PM] Iron: I can be against multiple potential situations.
[10:05 PM] Fermium: You can, but the majority cannot. As MIB stated...
[10:05 PM] Fermium: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

And again, I'm going to divide this into a fourth part, because we're still not even close to the end. Ye gods.

(Continued in part four.)

do you think it's wise to play the fool?

This wasn't captured in SL, so the chat format is slightly different, but the same rules apply, anonymity FTW.

3:18 PM] Axx: Mildly high-ranked players [b*tching} on MOBA forums about abusive chat bans will never not be funny.
[3:18 PM] Axx: "There should be some allowance for yelling at bad players as long as I'm not being racist about it", etc.
[3:19 PM] Axx: Like... hmm... no?
[3:20 PM] Axx: Nobody ever, at any point, needs to berate another player. Nobody ever even needs to hit the Enter key. Literally ever, these games can be played 100% without hitting that button.
[3:21 PM] Axx: If you can't not be an [a**hole], then you did it to yourself.
[3:23 PM] Axx: That all-thumbs feeder noob isn't going to suddenly and magically gain more skill because you typed "kys retard" into chat. Or even the slightly more polite "stop feeding" -- it won't magically make them stop.

For those unaware, "kys" is shorthand for "kill yourself". Some overly-angry players yell (or type) the entire phrase, some just snarl (or angrily type) the shorthand.

[3:24 PM] Axx: But "better" players think they deserve to be able to yell at "worse" players. And then they come to the forums and whine about it when they get banned for doing so. And I laugh.
[3:25 PM] Nxx: Yeah, [f*ck] people like that
[3:25 PM] Nxx: whiny entitled crybabies

True, but the larger gaming community either supports them in this, or just don't say anything, thus silently offering no open disapproval. And, in this case, silence equals approval as well--what they're never called on, they never see a need to change.

[3:29 PM] Axx: It's why I quit LoL. Because the community is just so awful -- at the lower level you have the low end of the Dunning-Kruger curve, the people who are so bad that they don't realize they're bad and yell at everyone else for being bad; and then at the high end, damn near literally every single higher-skilled player thinks they deserve to be able to rage at anyone less skilled than themselves, and that it's the bad players' fault that they're raging [a**holes], not their own fault for lacking self-control.
[3:30 PM] Nxx: Yeah, that's the impression I get
[3:30 PM] Axx: Like "if you would just stop playing like [sh*t], then I wouldn't need to rage", and it's just so backwards -- and it's absolutely pervasive in the highish skill tiers.
[3:30 PM] Nxx: I have no doubt.
[3:34 PM] Axx: Part of me wants to blame the isolation and relative anonymity online gaming provides for that one. After all, if you're sitting down next to someone with a controller at the same console, and you start spouting off at them the way these people do, they could just reach over and smack you upside the head and you'd 100% deserve it. I'm not so much saying that the lack of fear of physical violent retaliation is the cause, but the fact that you have to look someone in the eye in face-to-face interaction is a near-automatic source of mutual respect. If you can look someone in the eye and talk [sh*t] at them, either you really mean it or they really deserve it.
[3:39 PM] Ash: Whereas with online games you can just go "you're all so bad!" and suddenly and magically nothing is your fault and you didn't have to actually directly accuse anyone to their face -- and since the behavior is so normalized, you won't even get a bad reputation for doing so, so you can just keep on doing it.
[5:44 PM] Fxxxxxx: That part of you should absolutely blame that, because it's true. But it doesn't explain why it's worse in some games than other games.
[5:47 PM] Fxxxxxxxx: Investment
[5:48 PM] Fxxxxxxxx: A game that is over in five minutes is more frustrating then one over in 45

Maybe that's it, but it doesn't seem to ever change the behavior. Examples (and warnings for language):

Several of the worst offenders seem to be adults with poorly controlled anger issues.

Men explaining how women need to be yelled at by men to behave properly.

A video explaining why women generally choose to play single-player games, or not voice while playing MMOs.

And apparently it's not exclusively a male thing, as women have been just as much as fault as the men.

And what brought all this up recently is hearing of one particular streamer involved in a case of domestic abuse and battery (yes, he was charged for this) against his wife.

And he's far from the first. Racism, bigotry, homophobia, Islamophobia are rampant, because oftentimes it is easier simply to exist a current game with an abusive player, and join a new one, rather than raise a fuss and tell them to stop. Because most of these individuals are so high-strung they will just go off, screaming, raging, entirely out of proportion to the level of offense. Who needs that kind of stress? Most people don't, so they don't engage, leaving the individual to think they're in the right.

And believe me, I understand that reaction--sometimes, I just want to play a game. I don't want to worry about being harassed over my voice, or my looks, or my opinions; my Steam profile mentions more personal details than many services I use, but that's also because with few expections, my games are single-player. There is no one else in Minecraft, or Layers of Fear, or Hell Girls, or Diablo II to get in my face and tell me I'm terrible because I didn't automatically know how to deflect the thing they've been deflecting for a decade now. It's useless to argue with some of these people, and I, like many, don't even bother anymore.

by the tree that weeps with me

The NSA won't hand over data to the courts because apparently, they don't know where it is. By their own admission, they'd have to shut down all servers and do a manual, byte-by-byte search. Somehow, I have faith in this statement, but doesn't that say how much things have gotten out of hand?

And, since the new McDonald's Happy Meal character is so terrifying, Gizmodo is helping us deal with it by providing rich resources of nightmare fuel. ...Enjoy?

I'm still kind of heartbroken over the whole "Slender stabbing" thing...It used to be just one, terrifyingly savage event in Waukesha, Wisconsin, but...then news broke that another "follower" has arisen who stabbed her mother. Now I'm wondering who else is going to be injured or die as hysteria rises.

I found this video:



and now I'm wondering why Nicolet Park, too. Was it just that it was a forested space nearby? Had there been supposed "sightings" of this character within the park? As far as I know, no semi-canonical records (AKA, YouTube channels like MarbleHornets, DarkHarvest00, EverymanHYBRID, TribeTwelve, WhisperedFaith, KeratinGarden, weibWillow and others) use Nicolet Park as a staging center. But who knows? It's not like I'd recognize Nicolet Park for the trees:



For comparison, this is a hiking train in Kenmore, Washington:



and this is a hiking trail just outside of Memphis, Tennessee, in Overton Park:



so as you can see, trees in one place pretty much look like trees in other places. Because trees.

"Magic School Bus" is in process to return to public television. I'm kind of happy about that.

And here's some terribly cute kittens to make up for the Slender Man trauma.

And have half a dog. Ta.

and bitter cold goes side by side

News of NiranV's trouble with this JIRA is both daunting and depressing to read; while I no longer use Niran's viewer, I will say I found it easy to use, easy to build in, and photography was phenomenal while using it. Overall, I really thought it was the best of the V3 coding out there.

But it seems he's intent on hanging up his hat. If true, he will be sorely missed as a creator of an actual USABLE V3 viewer, but more than that, this kind of battle with the Lindens (and the rest of the TPV community) burns people to cinders, and that's the really sad thing. He shouldn't have had to fight this hard to fix things.

But then, in reading through the JIRA comments, my jaw hit the desk more than once:

"Real bodies are not perfectly symmetric, and neither is our avatar model; changing this now would be more disruptive than symmetry justifies."
(Widely Linden)

Seriously? Plus, that statement is so dense as to be nearly impenetrable for most people. "Real bodies" aren't perfectly symmetrical, no, but virtual bodies are. Plus, this seems to be a simple change so that prim clothing, armor, prim attachments, wings, et cetera, would fit better and be positioned more accurately, right? So why would that small fix be "more disruptive" in any way?

There are more interesting comments on that JIRA, but I'm quoting the last one in brief:

"If Linden Labs really wants to get their customers to drop them like a rock, feel free to close it again. I'll know to stop getting on Second Life and go do something productive then."
(Maki Guyot)

This is exactly where a great number of us are. And I know I say this a lot, but this time I think it has some merit, because I've pretty much given up on updating this blog at present. (Granted, that does not mean I'm not blogging, but really, the only blogs I'm updating at all right now are my Tumblr feed and Topping Out.)

Without serious work on their communications with the community, without severe and sudden deconstruction of the ivory tower elitism that seems to solidly permeate Linden Lab, they're going to lose Second Life as a viable world. Which--also as I've said before--would be a really bad thing, because so many different applications (everything from training midwives to practicing military tactics to rehabilitating the disabled to encouraging socializing and personal contact) keep surfacing as to why SL is a good thing to have around.

Meet the fastest robot in the world--at least, so far, that is.

I don't normally get political on this blog, but I have to laud Nancy Pelosi's recent statement that violent video games have no impact on school shootings, and on violence in general. She's getting dunned, especially on Fox News, for this stance, but I have to applaud her for this. Because if violence in games were the sole determining cause, then there would be huge upswings for violent acts in Japan, for instance, which allows far more brutal depictions of violence in games than even we do.

We need to address the culture, not the media created by the culture. Because it's still the truth: guns don't shoot people by themselves, and violent games don't kill on their own, either. Find the root causes, not the symptoms, and we can begin to heal the cultural rift. Taking away the weapons and the games, by themselves, won't work.
Finding out why so many of our teens feel disenfranchized, why so many of our teens snap after years of constant bullying and abuse, will do us far more good than banning a few games that the bulk of young adults don't even play.

To distract from the political, have thirteen minutes of bizarre news bloopers.

And after that, here's a twenty-five minutes on why those of us in the US are paying more and getting less (in terms of download and upload speeds) than comparable developed nations. Just taking the case of Hong Kong, where even the poorest households have faster data transfer rates than people who have the fastest speeds over here, it does cause us to wonder why. I'd be very interested in finding out what Time-Warner and Comcast (to name only two) think about Ms. Crawford's assertions.

Moving on to art, let me introduce you to the work of Augusto Esquivel. He's using simple buttons strung on nylon line to create ephemeral, moving hanging sculptures. Personally, I remain enamored of the piano, but some of the other set pieces are just as stunning.

For art closer to home, buying one of the clock pegs from Yanko Design will let you use any random object (of the correct dimensions) as clock hands. Want to mark the hours of your day with pencils or pens? Done. Want to insert harvest twigs? Done. Slim throwing knives, tatted bookmarks stiffened with cornstarch, wire ribbon? Whatever. It'll work. Insert things into peg; set correct time; insert peg into wall; done.

The next dangerous drink has emerged: in this case, a vodka rated at 250,000 Scoville units. (To put that into perspective, poblano peppers rate, on average, between 1,000 and 2,000 Scovilles, jalapeño peppers around 5,000 Scovilles, straight cayenne about 30,000, and pure habañero pepper about 200,000.) The terms in which this vodka is described make it sound less like a drink, and more like an assault; however, I know people who would buy that--and drink it--with great relish.

At least until the burn hit. Then there might be tears and lamentations.

Let me also introduce you to Tsuyoshi Ozawa, who in 2012 did a series featuring women holding vegetable weapons. I...really have no place in my brain for that, so I'm sending it out to you. Maybe someone will make sense of it for me.

And there's a very inspiration video featuring women in Second Life participating in One Billion Rising. It's an important cause, and it's a touching video, both. (Plus, here and there you might recognize a few faces you know.)

the highway signs say we're close, but I don't read those things anymore

fxxxxx.rxxx changed their display name to νєηÕMÕÛş 乃αşｲαя.

Are you kidding me? Those are not words! This is Unicode abuse!

Back on the 14th of this month, I covered a little of the Lara Croft controversy. I updated that by a bit on the 22nd. Now, the designers behind the Lara Croft reboot strike again, having this to say about their initial announcement that Croft gets raped in the reboot:

According to Crystal Dynamics global brand director Karl Stewart, there is no sexual assault or rape in the upcoming video game, despite executive producer Ron Rosenberg's statements to me in Los Angeles earlier this month. Rosenberg had said that island scavengers will imprison and attempt to rape protagonist Lara Croft. But Stewart says that's not true.


"He said something which is certainly a word that is not in our vocabulary and not in our communication," Stewart told me on the phone yesterday. "He did say it... It's his personal opinion and certainly... like I said, it's not something that we communicate."


Stewart says he doesn't know why Rosenberg used the word "rape." He continues to emphasize that the scene, which you can watch below, does not represent any sort of sexual assault. He calls it a "pathological situation." He says it was meant to evoke fear and intimidation.

Err. Let me just pull one phrase out of that mish-mash of backpedaling:

He said something which is certainly a word that is not in our vocabulary

A word that is "not in their vocabulary". Really? At all? That's incredibly badly phrased, and I can virtually guarantee will now irritate people more than simply going to Kotaku--and anyone else covering this--and saying, "We said it wrong. We meant this."

Another bit from the article:

There are undeniable sexual connotations, and Stewart even admits that if a male hero like Nathan Drake had been placed in the same situation, the thigh-rubbing wouldn't happen. But he says it's not sexual assault: it's "close physical intimidation."

That, also, is telling: if a male hero had been placed in the same situation, there would be no sexual interaction. Why does that change when the gender does?

Here's the grim dark heart of this entire thing: One in four women in America has been sexually assaulted. One in four. In 2000, that figure equated to 246,000 women who've survived rape or attempted rape (and no, this figure doesn't count the women who didn't live through the experience). That's almost a quarter of a million women every year, or twenty-eight every hour. That's both harsh and terrifying, especially with the figures on how often rapists are not convicted.

Seen in this (very dim) light, while they're absolutely doing everything they can to divorce the word "rape" (or even the words "sexual assault") from the Lara Croft reboot, think about it this way: what if, subconsciously, they're just reflecting the society they're in? Twenty-eight women an hour. That makes it within the realm of everyday experience. That makes it an experience that twenty-five percent of all women have had. Twenty-five percent of the gender who've been raped; who've had rape attempted; who've been sexually assaulted...and most of these women were raped or sexually assaulted by a family member, or someone that they knew. So it's not just random sexual violence; most of it is sexual violence perpetrated by someone they trusted (at least at some point).

Let's take this farther--the point at which the sexual assault takes place is not a cut scene. While it is pre-rendered (one would suppose to lessen the graphics burden and up the responsiveness of the controls for the console), there is a point at which control is restored. If the player does nothing, the sexual assault happens. It only fails to happen if the right commands are issued from the controller.

The Mary Sue post pointed this out:

Lara Croft will be punished with rape for failing to complete the game objective of not getting raped. The responsibility is wholly upon her to protect herself, it is not upon the scumbag rapists who are trying to hurt her. According to the producers of Tomb Raider, it is certainly not the fault of a culture that encourages depictions of sexualized violence against women. "The ability to see her as a human is even more enticing to me than the more sexualized version of yesteryear," Rosenburg states.

Let that sink in for a moment. This is victim blaming raised to wideband broadcast status, because as a section of the Lara Croft franchise, this will be highly advertised and--I think I can honestly state--widely bought by players looking for the Next Great Game, or wanting to see what all the controversy is about.

And let's also be brutally honest here--this is an industry that still widely sees itself as catering to men only. Which also ties in, uncomfortably, on that statistics level--because if one in four women have been raped by or after their fourteenth birthdays--that means one in four men have actually raped, or attempted rape. Which also makes that a common experience.

Maybe it's less about the game designers being blasé about rape, as much as it's about the game designers' subconscious understanding of our culture: namely, Lara Croft is sexually assaulted in the new game because everyone knows someone who has been. Sexual assault, in this light, is commonplace.

Forget the game; that's the truly outrageous thing.

In other news, Lego International is seeking votes on an upcoming game-tie in Lego set: namely, Portal. You'll have to register an account on the site to vote, but it's a painless, free process. If you want to see Lego-based Chell, a Lego-built Companion Cube, and Lego-designed orange and blue portals--go vote!

And not only will Warehouse 13 get a fourth season, but they've got a fun new guest star: Brent Spiner. Considering the amusing way Spiner met Rubinek in the first place, this pretty much brings both actors full circle.

A full-scale zombie wedding was planned--and executed brilliantly--in Colorado recently. If for no other reason, you should click the link and read the vows, at least: they're epic.
Finally, five years ago, artist Jason deCaires Taylor installed an underwater sculpture collection to highlight the problem of disappearing coral reefs. That video was shot in 2009, to show the initial two-year development of coral and sealife on the sculptures. It's both eerie and beautiful.

what if I'm a crowded desert? too much pain with little pleasure

Along with, I suspect, easily a third of other Americans, I have a Netflix account. And Netflix has a fairly insanely varied list of films that can be watched online, without having the discs sent to my home. (This suits me, because I watch a lot of films, and it suits them, because I still pay them and they don't have to ship as much to me, so it's a win-win situation.)

But I've been trying to catch up on my Asian horror selections, and one of them I've wanted to see for some time is the South Korean film Arang.



Now, Arang at first glance seems your typical (Japanese, at least) Asian horror film--there is the expected long dark hair, there are the expected flashes of crazy eyes, there is an intensely creepy child who stalks men for no reason. All of these are becoming common images, familiar tropes at this point. And well they should be--they generally indicate frightening spirits of vengeance in Asia, thin hungry wraiths with lank dark hair, sometimes wet, and clawed or bleeding hands and eyes--so far sunk into mad rage that they inflict harm on anyone they come in contact with.



And I will say it's perhaps an overly ambitious film, for what it's trying to do; on top of that, it expected a lot of its audience, and (at least in the English translation) never bothered to translate any emails sent to characters (a large plot of the film), nor the end "tale of the legend" behind the name at all.



But the film is actually much deeper than that, and knowing more about it, makes it that much more frightening.

Arang was the daughter of a magistrate in the Miryang region of Korea, during the time of the early Joseon Dynasty. In a very odd twist on the 'kingmaker' legend, her governess--apparently seeking to overthrow the local power structure--hired a servant named Baekga to kidnap Arang and rape her, thus preventing her from marrying into a good family to strengthen her father's political alliances.

But Arang was the prototypical 'good girl'; she struggled with Baekga, refuting his advances, and in the struggle, he stabbed her to death. She died, her hair and clothing in disarray, bloodstains on her rent garments.

Now, for whatever reason (my personal belief is either Baekga or the governess burying her body without being detected, to encourage the story of Arang running away), her father thought she had eloped with a strange man, and he suffered a deep and crippling sense of shame from her actions. Soon after, he resigned his position as magistrate.

But here is where Arang's vengeance comes into play. The governess conspired to appoint a new magistrate, and that magistrate was confronted one night with the daunting image of the slain Arang, screaming her vengeance for her ruin. He fled the magistrate's house and the position. And after each magistrate was elected to this region, Arang would appear, and terrify the new man chosen into quitting. For more than ten years this went on, until the election of Yi Sang-sa, who was brave enough to survive Arang's visitation, and swore to her spirit he would avenge her.

He tracked down Baekga and the governess, and they led him to the body, mysteriously preserved; whereupon he had both arrested, and that seemingly brought Arang peace.

(The front gates of the Aranggak Shrine in Miryang.)


There is still a shrine that stands in Miryang, called Aranggak, where offerings to her spirit are made. While the official rites are no longer celebrated, for centuries rites specifically to her were held on the sixteenth day of the fourth month on the Chinese calendar.


(Behind the altar of the Aranggak shrine in Miryang; a painting of Arang.)

It sits on the rise of Yeongnamnu, above the Miryang River, and even though official celebration days have ceased, she is still honored for her virtue and for her strong will and perserverance.



There is some odd link in all of this to Korean bamboo salt (not to be confused with bamboo rice) as well, an intriguing beauty aid produced in China and South Korea. The trick is simple: hollow out a stalk of bamboo; fill it with coarse-ground salt; then seal the ends and roast it slowly, nine times. Nine times apparently pulls out the bulk of whatever's beneficial in bamboo into the salt; it also darkens the salt to a fleur de sel grey.

Why is this relevant? Because it's purported to be such a great healing agent, able to reverse aging, to whiten and lighten the skin; it's frequently found anywhere from shaker form (for people to carry with them, and shake a bit on everything they consume, from snack foods to desserts) all the way to milled soap (and apparently there are companies encouraging people to use the salt alone as a bath additive, because it both 'cleans and purifies'), and everything in between.

And, since much of the film's action centers on the mysterious salt warehouse, it's one odd subconscious clue to the perversion of bamboo salt's curative powers, so even that Korean tradition aids in understanding of the film.



Even that is not where we stop in trying to better appreciate Arang; because this film is not the typical supernatural horror flick. It has a surprising amount of heart, and, beyond that, it's a morbidly effective crime drama on its own merits. If we stripped out every paranormal detail, Arang would still be enjoyable because it's so sharp--why was the lead detective suspended? Why was her new rookie partner transferred from the city? Who's behind the unnerving website that each of the victims visited before dying?



And then take one step farther back from that and ponder deeper questions: is it wrong to become a police officer out of vengeance, for example? Is it wrong to become a police officer because you've made mistakes, and you want to fix them? Can a woman who's been raped ever love again? How close do mothers tie to their children? How close do fathers?



Ultimately, after everything, the last question is simple: what haunts us? Are our strongest haunts something other people give us...or do we ourselves store those terrors in our own heads? Arang is the story of people, and the choices, good and bad, that propel them forward. And it functions excellently on that level, as well.

Stephen King once said that being a true horror movie fan means we see a lock of shlock horror between the really great films. And if we're true horror buffs, we learn to relish the shlock along with the stellar pieces, not only because there's so much more of it, but because sometimes earnestness of heart counts, and we can see the edges of the film the makers were trying to record on celluloid. And sometimes, that's enough.

But he said that there's always a moment, and sometimes even in the cheapest, most ridiculous films, where the sudden heart-pounding terror rings like the finest lead crystal; whereas the bad moments will clunk and thud like the cheapest factory glass. "You can drink your Dom Perignon out of either one," he said, "but friends, there is a difference."



Well, this may not be Dom Perignon out of a Flinstones jelly jar; the production quality is slick, there's a palpable scent of money behind this one, and money well spent (at least until the translation budget, which I swear the producers spent on dancing girls and beer, because the translations are ABYSMAL). But I will say there are more than a few moments I heard crystal ring, and if you're willing to put up with a bit of plot confusion, and some (by now) highly recognizable Asian horror moments...I'm pretty sure you won't be disappointed. And you'll also detect the ringing of fine crystal embracing horror's finest.

At the very least, if you have a Netflix account...watch it there. It's not like you're out anything more for the month.

and I thank you for those items that you sent me, the monkey and the plywood violin

The Pixels and Policy blog covers dual sets of behavior expectations, for virtual worlds and real ones.

To step aside briefly from matters online, I want to know when it became de rigueur to extrapolate fashion choices into "slut" behavior. I'm serious, I'm not talking about the "she asked for it" stories that circulate after certain rapes (though that's not okay either). I mean, high school girl shows up in a slightly-above-knee-length skirt, she's now labeled "slut". Meghan McCain posts a Twitter pic of herself in a tank top (cleavage, yes, but otherwise? Completely covered up) and she's suddenly a "slut". If it were just from the so-called "older generation", I could maybe go out far enough on the limb to understand this, but at least one girl has died over this.

It goes beyond "she dresses trashy" and "man, that's a slutty look" into social shaming. When did social shaming come back into vogue? While I don't agree with the St. Petersburg Times' definition of "sexting" (for one, though it can involve photographs or audio files, it started out, and in the main remains, based around text-based sexual messages), I do know their numbers are way low. Beyond that, I know that the next big thing to sending pics of your breasts (or elsewhere), if you're a young girl (or certain extensions if you're a boy) is sending pics of yourself tied to things, or gagged, or in a collar. Master-and-slave games? Hugely popular among high schoolers right now. But the double standard is, if you don't send out sexy pics and/or sexy text, you're a loser; and if you do, you're a slut and hounded to death. Sometimes literally.

(And no, not kidding--single most popular game is to own someone, or be owned, because that means, somehow--obscurely--you're okay, you're popular, you're "in".)

What kind of culture are we creating, here? We might as well start sending out big cloth A's for dresses and put up punishment stocks in the city parks again.

PC Pro's Barry Collins asks, whatever happened to Second Life? The article seems curiously tilted; for all that he's calling it a wasteland and abandoned by all the cool kids, he's also noting that Second Life keeps making money--and lots of it. You can't make money off an abandoned property; people are still interested in SL, and all the bleating otherwise won't change things.

But I will say I agree with his assumptions in general: the Labs pissed a lot of people off, so now, yes, the mainland's pretty empty. It's rare I port to most stores and see more than one avatar standing around. It's equally rare that if I go to Zindra, I don't find it packed--at least by my definition of "packed" (which is still sixteen to thirty avatars visible).

I did admire how he ended the piece, though:

"It’s like the nouvelle cuisine of the 1980s: pretty, fascinating but ultimately unfulfilling. “What’s the point of Second Life?” I asked one of the “greeters” on the Second Life Help Island, desperate to find something that could make this vast, billion-dollar empire seem worthwhile.

“I’ve had a real life for 28 years and I haven’t worked out what the point of that is yet,” came his unexpectedly philosophical reply. “Second Life’s only been going six years. Give it a chance.”

Sorry, I’m afraid I’ve got a proper life to be getting on with."

Though I admit the original reason I was fascinated with that statement stands (I read it as "griefer", and wau, when griefers speak up for SL, the world really has changed), even reading it in context is fascinating. SL's been around slightly longer than six years, but they've only celebrated six years of being officially open to the public, not closed off in alpha or beta forms. Perhaps all the turmoil of the last three years has just been growing pains? The evolving multiverse figuring itself out?

Maybe, maybe not; but it's still intriguing.

Meanwhile, the A-rez Info blog talks about copybotting as "intentional human error", to wit: if the base avatars were more attractive, and outfits made with the base layer system more interesting, people wouldn't infringe content on SL. I don't think that's entirely accurate, but it's a point to consider. I'd want to take it farther, though:

* What if the base avatar had more attachment points?
* What if the base avatar had a better, more flexible mesh?
* What if the base avatar had tattoo layers separate from clothing layers--so that, in essence, one could have a back tattoo and an undershirt, an arm tattoo and gloves, a leg tattoo and pants...

Still, though, would these things stop people from copybotting? Not hardly.

"The last year was characterized by a certain lack of leadership, reflected in what seemed to be happening around the middle of 2009 with lower level Lindens responding to the lack of direction by “going feral,” while the ones in the middle apparently started eating their young."

A more apt phrase to describe 2009 on the grid has not been written. Period. (Go read the rest of the essay, too--Miss Dio's on the ball again, and she also takes on the Barry Collins op-ed piece.)

There's a new Literal Video out--the creator takes on Beck's Loser. It makes about as much sense as the original, really. Though I'm not sure that's a good thing.

Did I already mention the third part of the Portal series? If not, there it is; you should read that to tie everything up (if you've been reading the first two).

Dear PX, I feel you are the one
What's your name? Where are you from?
I'm in love, though we never met
Looking for clues, I search the net...

It's not just geek rock that takes on online love--symphonic metal does it too.

And finally, there are advantages to adoring a Disney fetishist--he sends me things like this (all the while griping that my blog name is too long. Gosh, I'll try and work on that.)

by red hot iron, by passages in books, a balanced hatchet

((A NOTE: While this is not an apology, I will say that this post is only directed at Dale Innis because he got in my way first. It could have been anyone; I'm not, per se, singling him out.

Now then.))

Lemme 'splain this to you people.

I'll go ahead and answer the comments made on last night's rant, but I don't think (with the exception of Sphynx, who just seemed genuinely distracted) any of you understand what we've been handed.

Dale Innis said:

I don't know how much of that conversation you were in on, but everyone was having such a good time just chatting with like-minded pervs [...]

Right. Because sitting in an obviously-designed-by-committee structure "having a good time" was the whole point of the exercise.

I don't know where you were, Dale. Me? I was watching as kids wandered around freely. I was watching adult artists who were heartbroken about what was going on. I was listening to merchants who still haven't been contacted on moving their businesses, and whose greatest fear is that they're going to have to buy land at high rates from land sharks just to continue in business, while meanwhile, their sales are dropping 75%.

I'm sure you and everyone you were with were having a fine time, joking and laughing. The people I was "with"--in the sense of standing next to them, appalled at Linden cupidity--were having a fine time, too. The dancer who'd put on her best slippery oil skin and seemed, for all any of us could figure out, to be doing her best to start an orgy on the spot. The newbies wandering in who couldn't spell, couldn't figure out where 'te sexx' was, and wandered away. The woman who thought the greatest joke in the universe was coming in naked on a horse, didn't seem to understand why few of us found it as side-splitting as she did, and who eventually wandered away.

You also said:

If things work out as I hope and expect, there will be vast amounts of Adult land on the grid, and on most of it there will be nothing sexual or otherwise kid-unfriendly happening like 99% of the time.

Riiiight.

Obviously you've forgotten what all of this was supposed to mean. According to Blondin, Blue and other Lindens who chimed in during the several forum posts on the topic, the adult continent was not designed to be for adult activity period. It wasn't designed to be just a rating, where people would only do "those things" on occasion, out of sight of anyone, and the rest of the time be happy little residents of Stepford--I mean, Zindra.

Do you even remember what the set policies were, Dale? If that even matters at this point, because the entire design of the adult continent convinces me that not only are the Lindens not listening in any way, shape or form, but they don't even properly comprehend the question in the first place. But the adult continent was not designed, so they kept telling us, just for sex. Oh, no. It was for the very worst that the human psyche could dredge up, so that the rest of the grid wouldn't have to be exposed to it.

Beheadings. Amputation. Medical fetishes. Torture porn. A happy new playground for the Dolcett crew. Shootings, stabbings, rape, non-consensual anything (though as I've said before, the concept of "non-consensual" on the grid is moot) concerning sex, bondage or (virtual) death. Apparently, anything that touches on Gor and Gorean is in this classification, too.

Photorealistic depictions of penetrative sex. Depictions, even cartoon ones, that feature any level of blood spray at all. Photographic displays of sex or violence. Photographic displays of corpses or mutilated bodies. Drug use. And I'm not even going in-depth into any of these.

Is there anything--anything at all on that list--that would tell anyone with two braincells to bash together that what they most wanted for their extreme gratification needs would be a goddamn industrial park with radiant teal lights??

And you ended with a comment worthy of Torley at his best:

But the people who were there last night were great!

Well, I'm glad you found the 'great' people. Me, I saw despair and confusion, I saw tragedy and resignation, I saw the quick-dawning realization of how deeply and viciously the Lindens have just slapped every adult in the face by presenting this. I saw people who wanted this to be just another free sex room paired with people who were justifiably cynical and depressed. I saw perfectly designed spots for business campuses, sterile landscaping, just about the single most ridiculous and inanely retro graphics to identify sim border crossings--and, might I add, those border crossings? Always either separated by a lane change, or actually occurring at intersections, so that anyone who actually wants to drive through the new and shiny will be unable to change lanes or actually stop at the (scripted! Why is no one more upset by this? SCRIPTED!!) traffic intersections without losing their car in the first place!

Ah, why am I bothering, you're not listening either.

But I do have to make one more comment, simply because I honestly cannot believe bits of your brain didn't leak out your ears when you typed this, Dale:

On the child AV issue, I will go out on a limb and say that the Lindens' current position on the subject, that child AVs are allowed on Adult land as long as they aren't doing anything kiddiepornish, is the right one.

Obviously, your tongue is firmly in your cheek, right? Because to even hint that you mean this seriously indicates such a staggering loss of comprehension, I'm surprised you can still form words that string together in sentences.

Let me try and explain this, since you seemed to have missed it the first time.

Regardless of anyone's personal reasons for climbing into a child avatar, nearly every single child avatar on the grid then expects to be treated like a child. Oh, maybe not talked down to, maybe not sent off to bed at a set hour, but they want to be treated commensurately with their appearance.

So. Regardless of whether the woman behind the screen is a 47-year-old housewife with five kids of her own in Detroit, she's wandering around as a six-year-old moppet on the grid. Fine. Let's go through this, then:

PG: She's fine. She's six. She has swings, she should have nothing offensive to say or be exposed to, she is a child surrounded by protection. Nifty.

Mature: She's still pretty fine. She's six. She's at a tea party in Caledon, or she's wandering Animania, or she's shopping for child-sized formals at Evie's Closet. The conversation may go over the head of the average, actual six-year-old child, but as she's an adult playing a child, more or less there's understanding and while she may chide people who act "adult" around her, things are still pretty much fine.

Adult: She's six. She's in a sim where--at any time--people could start to talk about sexuality, about violence, about drugs. Regardless of whether or not she's doing anything "kiddiepornish"--and really, you couldn't have come up with a better word than "kiddiepornish"??--the porn could start up at any time. Because that's the rating, Dale. The entire point was to push those who want adult dealings in the world, to not deal with children, moralists, and sneering prudes--wouldn't have to. The whole point was to get people verified, so there wouldn't be a problem with anything that might happen in the adult continent.

So. She's six. She's wandering around the adult continent. By merely being there, she's forcing upon rated adults, in rated adult land, restrictions. By merely being there, she's forcing her rating on the sim. Because gods forbit, anyone do anything rated "adult" in front of a child, regardless of who that child really is on the other side of the glass.

Do you get it yet? Does anyone reading this get it? Or are you just shaking your head because you don't understand what the big deal is?

This is a nightmare. And this is a nightmare that the Lindens are expecting us to swallow, because they're that smarmily superior about the whole thing. Now people will quiet down and behave, they might be thinking.

Sure.

she said, there's one thing you gotta learn, is not to be afraid of it

Cyberlandia arrives.

I love these people--and it's giving me grand ideas for in-world fashions...

Australia is very scary, where even simulated cartoon child pornography is concerned. Do keep in mind, I don't agree with the rising tide of Simpsons cartoon porn--not the least of which is, all the participants are a) underage or b) BRIGHT YELLOW or c) BOTH...but with ageplay already off the menu on the grid, does this mean litigious Australians will now be looking for short avs? Or, say, dolls?

This from Lady Serra, though it's been heard around the grid this morning:

There are some rumors of some nasty gift scam going around right now... as you all know these rumors could be true or might not be, the good thing about these rumors is that they remind us that accepting inventory from unknown sources isn't a good idea. Right now the item in question is called "Life Shop AO" Have a great night!!

The key part of that is, don't accept random inventory items from people you don't know. Period. If they're not in IMs with you, speaking rationally, and telling you they're going to be sending you something, don't accept. It's that simple, whether or not the "Life Shop AO" exists or not.

And my world's staggering a tad bit: I'm agreeing with Prokovy Neva. I may need to lay down with a cool compress until the feeling goes away...

On that similar note of potential sanity loss...you don't need your sanity anyway.

Yet another puzzle piece in the larger picture of why the Lindens are picking now to "clean up" their image: The U.S. Air Force is now in a partnership with Second Life for MyBase, which will expand later this year into actual operational lockdown (currently MyBase is open to the public). Later, the Navy and the National Guard are also planning jaunts inside SL, and are setting up initial spaces for virtual training.

Alas, what forsaken shame the proud name of Hax has earned recently. Prior to now, the very name Hax invoked islands spewing lava, entire civilizations destroyed, maddened bees and rampaging turkeys, slaying all in their path.

Now? It's also known for ripping creators off. And not even well-done hackwork, at that--poor, shoddy, forgot-to-remove-the-prim-creator's-name, hackwork.

All I have to say is, tinker Hax, you should be ashamed of yourself. Apologize forthwith to Miss Marat, and perhaps also to Mr. Denver Hax (for tainting the name of the Destroyer of Worlds). Or change your last name. It's up to you.

"Too dark?" the login screen asked. "Want to override the night and make the sun come out?" I think I still have a higher-than-average level of cynicism in my system; I rather took that as a direct slap in the face over the formation of Ursula. I'm sure it's just me...



We finally finished up the s.i.c. sim hunt tonight. It's over three of the sims this time, similar to the other ones--grab the HUD from the stall just off the main strip, track down ten small black boxes, about the size of...well, I was going to say a human head, but you'd have to flatten the head, then spray-paint it black, and at that point...really, you're better off just finding the ones there.

But as usual, quirky new details have been added whilst we were away. This sign for instance. (Click for the larger size, with the full set of signs haphazardly nailed to that signpost.)

The prize at the end of the hunt? A gun.

A BIG gun.



That sets things ON FIRE.

I'm sorry I don't have many images of the gun itself--I admit, I was rather more distracted than I expected by things exploding around me.

To wit: Miss Allen on the hoverbike outside of the Lunitarium grotto, cocking the gun...



...and the gun going off, and the grotto afire:



(We're behind that large patch of white glow, which is the plasma burst the gun first launches before the incendiaries fire. Also, in the first picture, Miss Allen is actually under the hoverbike, with the barrel of the gun aimed straight up.)

Lastly, Miss Allen showed us all a new innovation of Miss Pandora Wrigglesworth, her "Happy Missile":



I suppose it does look happy at that. Check in at Curio Obscura, see if she's still offering it for sale.

Also, Miss Allen:



looks really, really good on fire. (Though I wouldn't suggest just blindly whipping out flamethrowers as an alternative to a polite greeting, just so you know.)



It still remains a very well-done, amazingly detailed sim, start to finish. Or set of sims--s.i.c. spans five sims now! All through donations. It's just phenomenal. I've said this before, but if you've never considered a visit--do drop by, at least once. It's quite the experience just wandering around.

it's only the broken edge of love, it's never the tide

Back in, back in. So looking forward to this being done. May have to go out and wander, manic and wild-eyed, and just snap visuals for a post coming up.

At any rate, Akira Luminos pondered a question:

Maybe I'm way off - but...thinking about the child safety element (whether LL are planning introducing minors or not, but acknowledge that they are here anyway, as we probably all do) - *IF* the end result is to have an adult population 'verified', so they can access restricted adult content (which may well happen), and they still allow unverified accounts in SL generally, won't that result in an easier target for predators than we currently have, where at least they have no idea whether someone is a minor due to the cloak of all the adults with NPIOF status?

There's a point there, a good point. Deserves a good answer. Doubt there'll be one, but nevertheless.

Nany Kayo chimes in again:

Depictions of human slavery should be categorized as restricted adult content.

Slavery is considered extremely offensive by most people. No one should be confronted with images of ongoing slavery without giving their explicit permission.

I'm really starting to dislike Nany Kayo, frankly.

Then Blondin Linden actually responded:

What do other thinks about this? Would others agree that depictions of human slavery would fall on the side of extremely violent?

I'm more than halfway tempted to send him a notecard explaining exactly why Nany is on crack over this, with links and reference photos.

Deltango Vale responded to Blondin:

No, slavery is considered extremely offensive to Nany Kayo. The rest of us will decide for ourselves what we consider offensive.

Blondin responded again (miracula!):

What do you consider offensive in terms of violence?

Which is actually a damned good question. Sexuality, sexual identity, gender identity, it's all fluid, slippery, difficult to pin down. Violence, on the other hand, that's easier.

So what do we consider offensive, from a standpoint of extreme violence? Let me give a brief framework, maybe that will help.

* A collared avatar, kneeling, leashed to a standing avatar: not violent.

* Being slapped in the face: whether it's amusing or irritating, still mildly violent.

* Being trapped in a bear trap (bloodlessly): annoying; mildly violent. If there is particle blood--still annoying; moderately violent.

* Being punched: moderately violent.

* Being stabbed: weirdly, mildly violent, unless it involves particle blood again. Then I'd have to say moderately violent.

* Beheading: If it's carrying around one's own head, weird. Occasionally fun. If it's the head being cut off in an amusing fashion (I'm thinking the Unlucky Chair series of "deaths"), mildly violent (to moderately, depending on amount of blood). If there is a chainsaw involved and screaming, *extremely* violent.

* Loss of limbs: If in a cartoon fashion (avatar limbs folding up), mildly violent. If it's avatar limbs being torn off, accompanied by particle blood and screaming, very violent. If there are viscera dangling and the avatar is made to drag itself across the floor, that's the definition of horror for most people.

* Avatars roasting on spits: Very violent.

* Avatars being eaten by large animals: if it appears relatively painless, then bizarre, not necessarily violent (to me, at least). If it appears painful, if the avatar is struggling, if, again, there is screaming and blood involved--very violent.

So (for certain definitions of, to be sure), we're verging on sex again. So let's go into BDSM:

* Avatars chained: Not violent.

* Avatars dangling from ceiling cuffs: It's wince-worthy, it might appall some folks, but it's not violent, per se.

* Avatars stretched on racks: There's pain, sure, visibly; does that mean moderately violent, then? If there's moaning or screaming, then likely so.

* Avatars flogged (floggers being generally made of softer materials, though admittedly, an RL friend of mine made one from lengths of chainmail chain--which, believe me, having been dared into trying it? Welts nearly instantaneously), to the point of skin blushing, no welts, no stripes: mildly violent, at best.

* Avatars whipped (full cat-o-nine-tails-styled flogger, all the way up to full bullwhips snapped gently), to the point of welting: moderately violent.

* Avatars whipped with devices that cut the skin, or leave scars: very violent.

Beginning to see the definitions, or mine at least? Did I lose anyone?

And is defining "violence" in SL starting to look like it's a case of the Lindens trying to define sexual violence, emotional violence?

Will places like Toxia, for instance, have to move to Pornadelphia? Just because they offer places that might happen to mix pain and sex?

Though I am beginning to get a very dire image of the way Nany Kano's mind works:

Depictions of slavery would be considered objectionable in any public place in the United States, similar to burning crosses.

Wau. Just...wau. How deluded is that? And what does she mean, then, when she says "slavery"? Does she mean BDSM relationships--which is, in nearly all cases, consensual and worked out in advance, even on SL? Does she see a woman in silks, a woman collared, a man with a whip, a woman in tight latex, and equate them mentally and emotionally with lynch mobs and the KKK? That's not rational. That might not even be sane.

Kyle Steig has a detailed list for what he wants to see happen on Pornotopia:

Here's a solution that will leave me a satisfied customer and not one inclined to see what my legal options are:

- Skip the 'age verified' plan and go with 'age affirmed' as an opt-in process unrelated to payment info on file. Get yourself out of the liability business.
- Give me a 'reverse mute' so I can mute myself to anyone who has not 'age affirmed' and agreed to see 'adult content'.
- Give me an additional permissions flag that lets me not sell to or allow anyone to even see any products I make who have not 'age affirmed'.
- Let me apply this flag retroactively or flag content as 'pre and post' rift so I can't be blamed for things I made two months ago.
- Move every single prim on my mainland to equivalent parcels on the Adult Continent. Make it zero work for me or waive 3 months tier so I can do the work myself on land swapped meter for meter to ensure there's no out of pocket for me.

All the current options being discussed involve taking value I have paid and or worked for. This taking is in an effort to move SL to a standard not even applicable to my Cable TV in my home or the internet in general. The above terms let you demonstrate a commitment to segregate the pervs from your would-be investors and the press and they don't mean taking away my value.

We're only 2-4%. You won't miss us. It won't cost much. Be generous.

Hard bottom line there, but one that I think is more than reasonable. If the Lindens want this done, it's maybe the least they can do, really.

Phoebe Hatfield brings this section home:

I can not choose whether to be censored or segregated. I can not choose whether to be forced out of my land because your company is hell bent on alienating its customers. The only real acts of violence on Second Life are committed by Linden Labs. You can choose not to, but will you?

Likely not, all factors considered.

Blondin Linden finally defines something in the forums:

I would consider extreme violence to be things like torture. Can anyone here make an argument where torture would not be considered extremely violent?

Okay. That's a base line I can live with. Torture. Fine. Let's define the how, then.

Torture according to Dictionary.com:

1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.

Medicine.net's definition:

An act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person, for a purpose such as obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind. Survivors of torture often suffer from physical and psychological symptoms and disabilities. There may be specific forms of physical injury including broken bones, neurological damage, and musculoskeletal problems. Torture may results in psychological symptoms of depression (most common), post-traumatic stress disorder, marked sleep disturbances and alterations in self-perceptions together with feelings of powerlessness, fear, guilt and shame.

So for me? The line between those two definitions is markedly slim. I would have to say, and say positively, that--according to these definitions, as understood--that the submissive/slave relationship to the dominant/Master or Mistress is not torture. And that torture, as defined, is well over the line of what we want to consider as "extremely violent".

Let me say that again, as it seems to be vaguely important: BDSM and D/s relationships are not, in themselves, relationships depending on torture.

Of course there are cases that go beyond the bounds of generally understood concepts. But I believe by and large, on SL, what we are dealing with is a subculture that operates by choice. Pain by choice. Force, in this sense, by choice. Suffering, if we go that far, by choice.

So. Let's move one step farther back. If a relationship is consensual, it is not slavery, under the generally understood definitions.

Let's pull those in as well.

The Free Dictionary defines slavery as:

1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence: "I was still the slave of education and prejudice" Edward Gibbon.
3. One who works extremely hard.
4. A machine or component controlled by another machine or component.
intr.v. slaved, slav·ing, slaves
1. To work very hard or doggedly; toil.
2. To trade in or transport slaves.

And West's Encyclopedia of American Law defines slavery as:

1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2.
1. The practice of owning slaves.
2. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

Okay. I'm tired, I'm for bed, so let me wrap up this conversational jog somewhere at least safely off the road. Here's my take on this issue, at present:

1. People like Nany Kayo need to be more open-minded and less judgemental; also a good dose of thinking before they send out such ill-considered idiocy is heartily recommended.

Actually, no, there's a better starting point than that, but damn, I'm just irked enough to let that stand. But let's restart anyway.

1. The Lindens need good working definitions of extreme content, adult content, extreme violence and extreme sexuality.

2. They are soliciting opinions months in advance on how to word the coming documents, but they've already decided a new continent and segregation is the Best Plan.

3. Many, many people chimed in with alternate suggestions. These suggestions were ignored.

4. The Lindens began pushing for definitions again, and what bothered people, both in terms of open sexuality, and extreme violence.

5. The conversation was motoring along (at least as well as a luxury car with sugar in the tank and four square tires can) when slavery and references to Southern oppression were dropped like napalm candies into the front seat.

Now, I realize Blondin did leave the door open, but really--Blondin was asking about extreme violence. At what point does a conversation about the nature of violence in a virtual world even have to mention slavery in the real world? It's not just me, right? Nany is pretty much fifty cards short of a playable deck, here?

And me, personally, I don't care what your stance is on D/s, on BDSM at large. It does not matter. Pro or con, it doesn't even feed into this because Nany so completely overreacted that one almost has to stand back and applaud the effort, just on theoretical points of applied confusion.

It does seem, however, barring other factors--and more information coming past page 78--that the Lindens, or at least Blondin Linden, is trying to link BDSM with extreme violence. And that just doesn't work for me. Label Dolcett violent, fine; vore and snuff equipment violent, fine; label anything that shreds an avatar and bumps the typist off the grid; fine, I have no problem with that.

Gor? "Extremely violent"? The pretty little slave girl in silks, violent because she is a slave? The quiescent prettyboy under the spiked heel of the dominatrix holding the whip, violent because he's chosen to submit to a woman? Strippers, violent because they work in BDSM clubs?

No. Just no. It doesn't pan out, it's ludicrous, and whether it's coming from the Labs or demented social conservatives like Nany, it's a baseless accusation. It doesn't hold up. Logically, this allegory will not serve.

But it does make me curious about what the definitions for the adult continent will be, when the Labs finally release another draft...