The Group Tools Again

With the website down, I can't access the relevant transcript of the Group meeting yesterday -- but I read it, and I also talked to Jeska directly. And frankly, I'm worried, and I think anyone who cares about fixing the group tools will be worried, too.

What's happened is that some of us asked to be part of the community feedback on the development of the group tools. We asked the Lindens to open up this process, to hold public meetings, but not of the town hall type (although there will always be a role for those) with their push-media, and Kabuki-theater questions and therefore, of necessity, often riotious interventions, but some kind of panel format where people get to speak in coherent paragraphs about our *actual experience* with group tools and our proposals based on *considerable field-testing, not abstractions*. I figured they already had plenty of time in the IRC channel or whatever to hear from all those pushing elegant but abstract and complex tekkie solutions; I wanted to make sure they heard from those who actually eat this dog food day in and day out, those actually using tools.

Bark, bark!

What we got back, however, is something that twists and morphs this whole problem of the Group  Tools and their consequences into something else. What we got back is not a discussion of Group Tools and Their Reform -- that already is underway, and basically a fait accompli (or a fete accompli). In fact, in the usual Game Dev MMORPG Culture fashion, the Game Devs are doling out as little information about it as possible, because 1) they are mindful of competitors in their cut-throat game dev world and 2) they are mindful that the masses just burn through content or don't understand content in the way they wish them to, and they don't want them "in the way" and 3) given 1) and 2), they are ready with bromides like "We are going to give residents tools to empower them to change the world".

You always have to worry about people who tell you they will be "empowering" you. That means they have the power they are "magnanimously" granting you. And you don't : ) So, keep your eye on the ball here : )

Now, what is it they are doing then, intead of having a convo about Group Tools? They are having an open discussion about Covenants and Zoning. Go look at the title of the thread Jeska made in "Feature Suggestions". What are covenants? Well, who the hell knows? It's again, some hippie notion out of somebody's cocktail convo in Cali, or whatever, it's taken maybe from RL covenanting in real estate, or whatever, but we cannot understand how subjective decision-making, with local realities ever changing, is going to be codified into some rote mechanism concocted out of tools. Maybe they'll pull that off, but the more relevant question is: what are the group tools we'll have to be working with, such as to understand what we can do with covenants?

Of course, there were no shortage of WOOTing and drooling fanboyz at this meeting yesterday -- a pity, because they neither have what they think they are WOOTing about *yet* and what they are WOOTING about is not something necessarily we'll all WOOT about.

Let's take somebody who is, say, a professor in a college, with a group of students. He loves SL. But it costs too much damn money. The land especially is a killer. The subscriptions, even if you factor in the free basics, are too much money if you want to own land. He imagines if only he had this software, and only had his own university's server power, he could probably bring down the cost of the "land" or server space, and probably fix up a lot of the annoyances in the thing like prim bounce or whatever set of annoyances particularly get his goat. Anyway, that's how I imagine his imagining, as a non-tekkie, and of course I factor in that for any tekkies, just having their hands on the cookbook and its recipes is going to be endless joy of cookie-baking for hours. So everything that sounds like "My Own Server" where I can especially delete sexscorts, Tringo, and bling lag, seems all to the good for a university.

Except...we're not all universities and not everybody wants just My Own Sandbox, they don't mind there being a public gathering place where people come in and sort themselves out because they may have a business serving the public at large with its blingtards, and not the self-selected, government-funded project of students in a university. All of these projects are valid; they require different organizational models, however.

LL has a historic opportunity. They can remain a game company, and behave like game devs and dole out info and not reveal their hand on this group tools thing. Or they can treat their customers, especially those who pay tens of thousands of RL US dollars to them as partners, as equals, or at least as junior partners deserving of respect, and possibly citizens of a joint "country" that all are hoping to generate from this grid, and listen to what they want out of these tools, such as to make them more productive, ultimately enhancing the whole world.

Yeah, yeah, I know it's "not a country" and that's "just something Philip says" and it's "just a game" and sure, I know it, because gosh, what isn't like a game about buying a piece of land that devalues to half its cost even wholesale because of griefing, lagging, and land gluts from the Lindens themselves lol? I got the game part, trust me, and the game is really more like "Russian roulette" than anything else ROFL.

But, let's take them at face value. Why not? They want to make a Metaverse; so do we. We don't want it to be crappy -- they don't either. They know they have to get rid of the hippie dope-smoking stuff -- Dan Linden even very graciously said in the meeting yesterday something like "We know you want choice, and you don't all want the hippie tools we have here in San Francisco."

So there's only one thing I want from Dan or his bosses then at the moment: I want him to come clean on his model for the group tools reform. Does it protect the founder's right to control the entire configuration, delegating but retaining authority? Or is he going to cave to a small but determined minority of socialists, communards, anarchists, and sandboxing FIC and SIC, and have endlessly votable, endlessly changeable functions that will submit even a founder who paid money and tier to some kind of collective whim down the road. That's pretty big. We need a clear answer on that. Yes/no. On/Off. Not mindless blather like, "We will make the tools to empower residents to effect change" or "We want you to have choice". But yes/no, on/off.

Yes/No. On/Off. Does the founder of the group have the right to set it up the way he wants, with his vision and investment, with the set of hiearchical rules that he delegates to others either at his level, or in a hierarchical tree beneath him, or is there going to be more of the endless hippie groupthink stuff ONLY, out of which our founder wishing to make a normal company will once again have to fight "democratic votes" or "endless toggling permissions" for land or objects just to get a job done?

Yes or no? This is so basic that I will not take anything but yes or no for an answer.

And I realize why they can't say yes or no. They can't because they're afraid that this "collective wisdom" mob is going to scream MORE at them that they've caved to land barons or worse -- pyramid schemers, operators, tyrants, evil quantities or one sort or another.

Honestly, I get why they are keeping this one close, and foot-dragging, and probably arguing among themselves. It's pretty historic stuff, and nothing less than the groundwork for the whole virtual world.

But too bad. They have to bite the bullet and look at what their hippie tools have wrought: the Mainland. Those valiantly trying to work Mainland 2.0 or Mainland 3.0 are still doing it with stupid Group Tools 1.0 *inspite* of Lindens, not because of them. I suppose the only thing the Lindens did to help them was a) start bulk auctions to make these things cost only $1000 so that land barons have a free whack at sims without being bid out of their margins by wannabees and b) generously buy back dead telehub land.  I don't thing either of a) or b) was done properly and fairly, but who cares what I think? It's a done deal, and the reality is, the purchasers of the BulkAuction sims are probably going to make it look bettert than the Purina and Lazland that we have out on the Mainland 1.0.

Look at the damn mainland. Realize that the hippie commie dope-smoking stuff failed, and let it go -- except for those willing to pay for it, on their own sim, with tools that they can configure out of the basic set to do that thing if they want.

But don't impose it on the society at large. It didn't work in Poland or Chile or South Africa back in the day. It can't work here.

Not knowing if Tiger Crossing has read his blog contributions in the queue to moderate yet, I submit my response to his blog, which follows on on his group tool suggestions.

http://www.tigercrossing.com/blog/

Prokofy Neva Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

January 24th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Tiger, all of this has been pretty much absorbed already by all of us concerned about group tools reform. We all “get it” that the permissions have to be granularized, and made more flexible. We’ve been saying this for months, before you tuned in. In fact months and months ago, on the forums, I had a post, “The Groups *Are* The Government” in which I pointed out that there were at least 24 functions in the groups which should merely be toggled in an endlessly customizable way, to create new clusters of functions, rather than to have the static roles like “officer” that can always do X and Y and Z, but since Z is selling my land out from under me, I don’t have staff.

Studying this quite a bit more, we came up with 35 (or you could make 40, depending on how you characterize all the functions when you interact with the “about land” menu). Ok, we all got that. Granularity. Flexibility. Customization. Perhaps not all 35 or 40 or whatever should be endlessly toggled; perhaps there are some clusters that always must go together (i.e. why give someone the right to set the music stream but not deed the video or run the media menu, etc.; separate functions, yet they could cluster together.)

All this is clear, and everybody gets it. But…Knowing there is a tiny but very articulate, and very entrenched, and very close (or seeking proximity) to the Lindens minority that is leftist and socialist (often inchoately so), I even magnanimously say, ok, you want to keep these San Francisco Summer of Love hippie dope-smoking tools that spread all the wealth equally and make it possible to Steal This Land? OK, keep them…or make them even more hippie, I don’t care, just let me have the same flexibility NOT to have a man separated from his land after he has paid the purchase price. Let me live in the Winter of Hate if I must…

But here’s where the difficulty comes in. There’s quite a lobby now on the forums, and you appear to be among them, that flies the flag of “Power to the People” and “granularity” but in fact could be imposing a heavy burden of paralysis and rigidity by making too much endless choice a constant.

How could this be? By subjecting every damn thing to a vote, always and everywhere. I don’t want to have each function be voted on by every damn member in the group always and everywhere. People nowadays are so conditioned to nod sagely about “the wisdom of crowds” that they forget that clumps of people are often pretty dumb when left to endlessly keep fussing over something. That isn’t about “tyranny” and “being a dictator” it’s about managing a group with a very limited and distinct purpose, i.e. rentals. I don’t want three-hour meetings with everyone who happens to put in 512 tier for a $250 discount off their rental, with votes using that 512 tiny bit of tier each time a decision has to made — do we buy this water that has suddenly appeared in the middle of the night in a parcel formerly owned by a seemingly stable large neighbour, now chopped to smithereens by Anshe Chung, or not?

Pham Neutra sounds as if he is proposing to make voting like that — and that’s a good reason why third parties never get started in the US, and on the left in particular, whatever success they might have (and it’s not been so great lately!) in other countries.

So, to summarize, I have the following concerns about your proposals

1. Have you read anything that I and others have already been writing on groups — for months? Go to my blog at http://secondthoughts.typepad.com A good summary is “What if the Pizza Guy Stole LL?” in which I point out that our Lindens don’t eat their dog food and don’t live in these groups (of course some assure me that indeed they do, but by that, they mean a group to organize an event or the mentors or something, not the kind of businesses and land groups we are talking about).

2. Do you yourself have a land group or participate in a land group or a group selling group objects or working on a group build where there are sales? Looking at your groups, I hate to say it, but it really seems as if you *do not know what you are talking about in practical terms*. I’m sorry if this seems blunt, but I’m known for bluntness anyway, and frankly, there is too much at stake here to have the group tools just become another playground not only for these hippies in San Francisco, but the hippies here in SL. You have groups for talking about this or that, groups for being a tenant in a mall, groups for previewing or hanging out with friends or goofing around and experimenting with stuff like time.

But you do not have *groups for MANAGEMENT OF people, land, objects, events, rentals, etc.* such as some of us have who feel a great stake in this.

3. WHAT is your goal in becoming involved in this now (at a relatively late stage, when the Lindens pretty much sound like they’ve got it doped out already). Is it a cool tekkie thing to be doing, an interesting experiment for you? Or do you yourself have something specific you want to accomplish in groups that you are actually in?

I suspect the answer to no. 1 is that no, you do not have any land group, or at least not one with very many people in it and complex problems. Hence, the overly complex, impractical, programmy, tekkie-wiki feel to everything you are saying. Again, sorry for putting it that way, but if you are going to use your stature as a smart, older, player with connections, and the Lindens are going to listen to you, we simply have to interject: you do not have experience in DOING the things that we want these tools to DO.

If you DO have experience, by all means, bring it forward, and if you do NOT, plese take a deep breath and ask yourself: why aren’t you asking others who actually do this to tell you the problems with the group tools, instead of just abstract fixing them on your own?

For example, I have spent a year struggling with these tools, and tried every conceivable hack, workaround, firewall, concentric formation, cutaway, and to get them to work. I have a dozen land groups, with hundreds of people in them. I’m not a rich person, but I’m obviously a busy person. I’m not an evil land baron, I’m just a middle-level rentals agent who has ideals like even some of the hippie communists about making communities better. But I refuse to be separated from my money and land by people who don’t pay time, talent, or treasure for it, it’s just that simple.

What I’d like you to do, is to stop futzing around with all these complex trees and hierchies and decision making and endlessly permutations of permissions and think about this:

A) How can we fill the gaping hole in the tools now that enable any officer to sell land out from any other officer, regardless of whether he paid the up-front purchase price, or pays tier? This has to be airtight. This has to be not a vote, but a yes/no, stop/go switch.

B) Whatever your need for all those buzzy “collective intelligence” type “People’s Power” groups, how can we prevent rank-and-file members of business groups from completely paralyzing a management group that is set up to accomplish a few limited functions, i.e. rent land, return prims? Again, yes/no, stop/go, not a vote. Vote on it if you want if you chose “yes” but let anyone who wants to get work done chose “no”.

The tools absolutely must remain flexible. I don’t believe from what Daniel Linden is saying that there needs to be any compromise on this. But I do think those still rooting for collectivism and collective control over founders or founders-plus-trusted-few need to take a giant step back and ask themselves, as I keep asking:

Where are the groups that are run by collectives, with equal input and output of resources? Ok, yes, we thought of Neultenberg. Next? Oh, Lusk or something? Ok…could you think extra hard and come up with some FRESH and DIVERSE examples? Well…there aren’t any! Because it’s a utopian ideal. So let’s stop nerfing the tools around these silly ideals and look at what people really do in this world, and how to make the tools serve them, instead of having the programmers set up unwieldly, unnecessary, and even destructive tools for the sake of their own abstract elegant solutions.

Comments

[Aspen Normandy]

Pardon my tekkie-speak...

I imagine, however, that LL is trying to address these group tool issues. Covenants / zoning may be a part of that. It's entirely conceivable that they intend to phase out groups altogether.

The reason for doing this would be if the "group tool" code was so poorly planned from the beginning that it is more effective to set up a new structure altogether than it would be to rewrite the old. Also, it allows a transitionary period as groups are phased out and the new system is adopted.

I could be wrong entirely about this.

But before grieving over the covenant/zoning issue, why not see where it leads, what it's about, and contribute your input and needs to it?

[Prokofy Neva]

I think you should just read the transcripts of the meetings, Aspen, before spouting speculative stuff. They've said absolutely nothing about phasing out groups, and are indeed working on coding improvements.

They've explained, in crystal-clear terms, that they will have group tool fixes, then tools that help mainland land groups have the same kind of flexibility of estate tools, and then what they themselves deemed as "covenant tools". And that's why we're even having this conversation with them, because they have a plan, it is not fully evident, there's lots to ask about it, but they are indeed "on it".

Go back and read what I wrote. Of course the covenant stuff is related to the groups. But first we have to determine: what kind of groups, to do what, with what tools? Then we can coherently understand what the covenants are. It would be silly to sequence this in reverse in LL terms, when they've stated the oppposite. What they did, however, was basically briskly skip over the hard tacks of what they are really doing to the group tools, and tried to lull us and distract us with some long complicated other fuzzy discussion about covenants.

The tactic is not a new one for authoritarian powers, even authoritarian powers that don't realize they are that, and don't realize they use this tactic, either LOL.

I think if you actually study all the posts of the last months, thr proposals made, and what the Lindens actually had to say about this yesterday, in a transcript, you'd already have answered the questions you are asking me to "entertain".

Indeed, I see the group tool thing as already poorly planned merely because they won't communicate a vision for it, or what they are doing, or its steps, or a timetable. It's the usual muddle.

And indeed it might need to be scrapped, but how can we know? I wouldn't hasten to assume we could ask the Lindens to scrap a thing they messed up on.

You don't ask the Lindens to fix up the tools and policies they mess up on and put out in a game patch. You click "yes" if you want to update your game and continue playing it or "no" if you want to go play World of Warcraft.

I tend to click "yes" because I have customers who also tend to click "yes" and try to grin and bear it.

[Aspen Normandy]

They can't just up and say "We're phasing out group tools" at present, without shaping what they could be replaced with. People would freak out about it. You at least should be sharp enough to see that.

I think, as usual, their crystal clear terms are political sidesteps. Necessary to take so as to not rock the boat with your current population. People need to be weaned to revamped systems -- not have it dropped on them like a bag of bricks and told "Deal with it".

[Prokofy Neva]

Well, Aspen, duh, but they haven't done ANYTHING to indicate they are working on phasing out group tools. I mean, with all the group-owned land in SL, they can't do that in a single drop-down patch tomorrow, anyway. Of course, I'm always mindful that the Lindens may fold up group tools and fold up the mainland at any moment, for no reason or any reason, and I will have no business. But there isn't a *liklihood* of that happening just yet, or in 120 days, without warning. So why endlessly speculate about this possibility merely because it is a remote possibility? I think if you just go read their transcript on the Features thread you'll snap out of this jag.

Well, I disagree. Lindens drop loads of bricks on us all the time. Who knew they'd have 24 hours to figure out what to do with their giant turkey avatar before it gets plucked by culling? etc. No, our Lindens are known for their HUGE surprises some days.

[Aspen Normandy]

Culling isn't a big deal, really. Those with the graphics capacity to not lag and an appreciation for small attachments will turn their LOD to full, those who have lower end computers will simply not see things until they are closer to it. Complaining about avatar LOD is like complaining about the ability to turn particle effects or local lighting off. Both of those take effort to make, yet for constraints on hardware, they need to be optional.

And looking at the transcript, it sounds like groups are being redone, in parallel with these other systems. So, you're probably right on that -- groups probably won't be phased out. At the same time, it sounds like they're trying to address some of the problems you hate about the group system so much. The need for assigning specific rights to specific people, etc.

Yes, they announced changes in a Town Hall fashion, but half of the examples given about new group features are things you have specifically asked for -- Why does this bother you?

[Prokofy Neva]

Well, I don't care about culling. I already see Psy as a chicken because of the poor rendering capacity, the grey squares, etc. So it won't affect me. I'm merely recording the howling being done by Hiro and others on the forums, and can grasp that this major a change should have been mentioned to the public. Like other things. It's not good to say "oh, well *I* don't think it's much* because in fact it is to others. That's just no good.

I don't care what the excuses are about this, it's a big change, and like the p2p and its side effects -- which they NEVER anticipated or explained we'd have to endure (grey squares and av traps at 128/128 -- more to come on this later), it's just a huge frigging nuisance.

Yes, they are addressing the problems I and many others have raised over and over again for years. Great! Except I don't trust them on the big things about it, like the founder rights. I can't trust them, given how they talk, and how they behave. I'm sorry, but the credit of good will is used up on me for now until I see how they really really REALLY do this.

Um, so what if half the things I've talked about are half the things they are merely talking about? They haven't done them yet. And I've now learned to understand that when Lindens say "we're going to do this" they don't really mean NOW or even 120 days (unless they mean "yes we'll spring something we didn't tell you about TOMORROW).

Honestly, stick around for a year or two on this place and just watch the patterns.

[Aspen Normandy]

Well, I can't really understand your complaint, I suppose.

You seem to be grieving over future development because LL is doing it, and you don't like LL.

If they weren't doing future development, you'd complain about the existing system, as you have been?

Also the Level of Detail change has been on the forums and has been a topic of discussion for several weeks, at least, so that's not one that was sprung out randomly. There will always (ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS) be a small minority who will be upset over different changes that occur on a platform. This is a universal truth. In this case, Hiro and a handful of others are that minority.

I guess my main confusion is -- what is the point you are trying to make? What is your ideal situation? You say a panel of people should give their input -- but who decides what that panel is? If it is group owners in general, then there will be no useful input gleaned. If it is based on financial investment, then the group tools will be tooled to support Anshe/Otherworld alone, as the single largest group land owner around by magnitudes (to my knowledge). At the very least, in that panel of input, it would only tailor itself to real estate, and not anything else.

Picking out a "panel" could only be done if LL hand selected people and groups to be on that panel. They can't do that obviously, since that would show favoritism and piss everyone not on the panel off.

So... what are you trying to get at? Or are you just complaining for the sake of complaining?

[Prokofy Neva]

Your remarks seem uninformed, and seem merely designed to express your irritation with me, because you don't like me. Well, that's not an argument lol.

My complaint is very specific. It's about a glass-half-full situation -- no locked-in rights for entrepreneurs. I'd like to see that. I'm not getting it. I will go on calling for it. I'm not alone in this call. Tekkie wikis don't care about entrepreneurs, they often hate them (they may change their turn when the very few, the proud, the Game Devs get that all important VC and make a game of their own some day LOL).

You're questions appear specious to me. Land group managers, and large group managers of other types (clubs, discussion groups, etc.) should have a chance to air their issues and share their experience with Lindens. Full stop. The Lindens have a lot less trouble with this than you appear to -- they are doing it : )

It's not idea -- they are still hacking and slashing at land owners' influence every way they can, as always, by dividing them up among groups, by making it merely 8 focus groups which don't add up to much but miles of transcript, by not creating a public forum where they could have accountability before an interested public. That's pretty clear. But we'll see what the results of this process is -- I'm skeptical.

In fact, Lindens pick people all the time. A series of focus groups and panels with interested parties isn't the end of the world. They already show all kinds of favouritism everywhere on contests, on who their soundboard interlocutors are, on whose land they spend hours on at events or chat sessions -- so please, spare me. The Lindens are grown-ups. Government officials don't wilt just because they have to be on a panel with an array of people, ranging from their loyalists to their opposition.

You seem to think it's completely impossible to make a proper government out of this game company. I'm more optimistic. I don't complain for the sake of complaining, I complain because I believe they are capable of this transformation : )

The LOD change has not been on the forums for "several weeks," that's silly, a cursory view of the forums will reveal what a shock it was for some.

[Kyrah Abattoir]

is it me or Pn systematically has a condescending tone in debates?

[Aspen Normandy]

Well, my issue is currently fairly directed at you because I don't understand what your gripe is about.

LL is addressing group tools.
LL is observing input given by various group owners and listening to concerns (even if it's only by reading forums, etc, or listening to what gets voiced at meetings).

How do you see this 'public forum' you envision working any different?

You want people to just shout a bunch of things they want? That's the feature suggestions board.

And the Lindens cannot just say "Yes, we'll do that, and yes, that's feasible" on the spot. They have to clear it with developers, schedule for it, make sure it's clear with other changes, make sure it's actually wanted not just by a minority, etc.

So all a forum besides these town hall meetings would amount to is in-world Feature Suggestions, to be logged and breezed through at leisure.

But, again, that's redundant. Feature suggestion board. Go nuts.

You still haven't offered up any real clear idea of what you want -- That's what my problem is with what you're saying. You complain and complain about this issue, but aren't stating any alternatives to the current course of action. You simply are expressing grief over what IS being done.
I believe you have a lot of valid ideas about what should be in the group tools, and what group tool reform is necessary -- but whining endlessly about Lindens actually addressing those concerns makes no sense to me.

[Prokofy Neva]

Aspen,

I've just been at the group meeting -- and read the transcript of the previous one -- and it's both better and worse than I thought.

Sure, LL is addressing the group tools -- but it's mainly to serve their own desire to spin the whole thing off and not take responsibility for enforcement of any kind of rule of law. They think by giving people the power to enforce "local standards" they'll be doing some grand revolutionary democratic thing. Instead, they'll merely be feeding Gors. It's sad, really.

Sure, the Lindens are going through the Kabuki of these focus groups. That's good. They even suddenly nod vigorously at just the dreadful moments when you hope they won't, and say, oh, we'll put that in just because some wiseacre spouts something. But...they already made up their minds long ago, they already are doing their thing, and these meetings are just about tweaking it, and trying to "prepare the masses" for the horrible wrenches and changes they will have to undergo.

Um, feature suggestions board and $2.87 and I still have only a grand lotte. It's worthless. They don't do the things in features...that's just to let off steam.

I've written extensively on what they need to do to fix the group tools. It's hugely detailed in my past posts on the forums, and my posts here. You're just tuning in very late and are too lazy to go poking around for it. That's ok, I don't need to prove anything to you, I've already long since filed all my suggestions to Lindens, fellow group members and leaders, colleagues in the game with whom I made the group Group Tools to try to go through this stuff, etc.

I was the first one ages ago to point out that we needed granular permissions. Well, surely not the first, but in this last year, when nobody was bothering with it, because the first round of people who bothered gave up and went to other things. But I warned that granularity with endless voting or with hyper collectivism to control the founder only wold lead to socialism again. So now what's happened is a clique of tekkies has taken the idea of granularity but invoked it to have socialism again LOL. Well, it was to be expected.

Anyway, you're at that stage of self-righteous indignation and irritability where you can't see any incoming impressions and truths lol. So sit with that but rest assured I have more than commented about the group tools, I've lived them.

The Lindens are really only up to one thing now: how to palm it all off on us -- the annoying bits, like what to do about Lazarus, I mean.

[Aspen Normandy]

So what you're saying is that you are upset because you are not the one leading up the design team on setting up group tools? That LL did not come to you, one person, and have you draw out the whole structure?

LL has to serve the most people possible, Prok. Not just you alone. You filed your suggestions on group tools, a lot of others probably did as well, and now they've found what they probably feel is a comfortable compromise of all the suggestions they've received.

Just wait and see how the group tools pan out before engaging in pre-emptive complaining.

[Prokofy Neva]

Um, bored at work, Aspen? Gee, that's silly. I'm not a game dev, as Jeffrey Ventrella has helpfully reminded me at the SL Herald : ) But I *live here*. I *eat this dogfood*. Bark, bark! I want a say in this world. So I say it.

You're just doing exaggerated tekkie literalist bullshit now, Aspen, making it seem like EITHER you have to lead the design team OR you have to be in some static, dutifully WOOTING fanboyz group forming an Amen Corner, or else "there's the door". I don't know how young people like yourself *get this way* nowadays. Why don't you have more spunk?

The idea that I'm supposed to lay prone and prostrate because the Lindens have to "Serve The People" is utter, unadulterated bullshit, and merely reflective of the horridly, horridly conformist mindset that you young tekkie folks have gotten yourself into.

My God, I'm a member of the People too, and I get to be Served, too. And there isn't just one of me. There are a hell of a lot more people in SL running various land businesses or clubs or other types of businesses, from RL consulting to SL project management, who want these tools to be workable as RL-type businesses, not tekkie-wiki sandbox hangouts.

They have found nothing of the sort. In fact, it was our screaming about the problem of the socialist treacherous officer selling out land from the group that galvanized them, and they say as much.

Um, I sure as hell plan to engage in as much pre-emptive consulting as I can possibly muster the time for. And as I've said before, the Lindens are a lot better than their tekkie-wikinista factions because they themselves have opened the door for no less than 5 groups of 8 people to come in and tell them their concerns. As we know, it's not every game company that does that (but as I always say, it's not good enough for them to be "better than most game companies" -- they aren't supposed to *be* a game company but are supposed to be a country, as they often say -- and indeed, the thrust of what they are saying now sounds like they are abandoning their federalist empire concept and spinning off Balkanized states, with all the concommitant horrors.

I absolutely have no intention of sitting idly by, while they finish these tools and they are set in stone. I'm going to be expressing my concerns mightily, as I expect everyone else to do who has a stake in these tools.

You must not run a group, and you must not spend a dime on SL, if you can take this passive, conformist, quietist yet horribly aggressive and condescending point of view.

I have news for you: the thing you are so slavishly conforming to keeps changing ROFL.

[Aspen Normandy]

My point is not that you should sit idly by at all, but to be constructive and actually offer up suggestions rather than just bemoaning things. Your entire original post here was just complaining ceaselessly about how the current state of things is -- without offering any alternatives.

I know you're going to respond with "But this is how I am -- I bitch until things change, and then I bitch about the change, and if you don't like it too bad" -- but seriously, you are an intelligent person who has worthwhile input to offer. So offer it. Don't just sit and bemoan the current set of changes that are addressing what you want reform in -- be a part of it.

Make another bulleted list of things that you should like to see in the group tools. Put it on the forums, put it here, explain in great detail, etc.

Are you completely unable to understand my point here?

Basically what I see happening is this..

You and many others were upset about the sorry state of group tools, and voiced your concerns. Finally, LL has stepped up to the plate to try to re-do them, using the feedback they have gotten.
And now that they are doing exactly what you wanted to begin with, you are complaining just as loud?

Get off your cross and start doing your consulting to LL.

[Prokofy Neva]

I've written extensively on "constructive proposals" for the Group Tools here on this blog, in emails to the Lindens, and on the forums before I'm banned. So you're talking through your ass here, Aspen.

Furthermore, I'm under no obligation to be "constructive" when the Lindens had something in these tools that was very *destructive* (the ability of officers to sell land out from under other officers who were in fact paying for it). And that needed to be removed. And they recognized it. There was also the issue of officer recall, which took A LONG TIME and A LOT OF campaigning to get through the Lindens heads, or at least some of them -- some of them got it, some didn't. There'd be constant griefing, through fake officer recalls triggered by anonymous griefers, and we'd complain, and the Lindens couldn't even trace the people. Finally I was able to catch one of them at it, document his threats, document his presence in the group, etc. and they acted. This took repeated tries, each time, losing days of being able to rent new rentals because when a group is frozen by officer call, no new member can come into it (you can stop the recall by leaving the group and taking your tier with you, but then another officer has to invite you in, and meanwhile your group is undertiered dangerously -- and I didn't learn about this workaround, not widely known, for the first few times it happened -- and the Lindens did not tell me, but a land baron).

This took constant communications, emails, abuse reports -- you just can't imagine -- and not only from me. And finally they did something about it.

So your notion that I'm just spouting off crap and not taking action -- and not taking effective action -- is entirely ridiculous and uninformed.

You don't seem to get how change works. You think you get in step with the group-think there and applaud them and subtly shift them or whatever. Bullshit. We jumped up and down and screamed and hollered that we were losing real US dollars because of this damn officer recall crap, and finally they did something about it -- and in the face of some serious whining from people who don't have land groups, but just are too lazy to re-make their groups around annoying officers, or have some highly special personal situation with their group, and want the bork the entire tools around them.

Like yesterday, a girl kept interrupting every five minutes to tell us that she had a problem in her sim with someone who refused to sell their land so that the theme of the sim could be met, and they never logged on. We didn't even learn whether this person was even in the group. To which the Lindens could only blandly say, "sorry, but we can't force people to sell their land or change the theme to suit you. All we can do is make new covenant tools for private islands, and move there if you want to protect themes."

I don't get this concept where just because the Lindens started working on something, I'm supposed to shut up and eat my porridge. Huh? There's PLENTY to holler about still, and I will be hollering. There are some really serious bad actors afoot on this stuff, and it needs some serious pushback -- like Traxx Hathor's "marvelous" idea of greating master ban lists across all sims to get rid of "malefactors" -- and thank the Lord, Robin Linden pointed out gently that such things designed to get rid of griefers in fact can only lead to griefing and harassment of people who haven't done anything to be banned from a sim or mass-banned in this fashion.

If it weren't for her being there, as a more senior and thoughtful Linden, if it was just some junior tekkie Linden, I have no doubt that they might have answered, "Sure, mass-ban all you want, we're giving you the tools to change your world, dude."

When people go about making tools without any direct connection to those they are making them for, the abuses inherent in that system are potentially rampant. To their credit, the Lindens are getting feedback. But frankly, the posture of dissenters has to be continually to hold their feet to the fire. This stuff is too imporant to just roll over and start bowing and scraping to some game dev.

There's no "cross" and no "suffering" and I don't need to be in some kind of "consultant" mode to LL. They have PLENTY of little fanboyz and junior game devs who are falling all over themselves to go and code this, or get involved in commenting on the code blah blah. If anything, what's needed is a critical outsider's view, and as someone who really has to use these tools on a daily basis, I intend to be speaking my mind on it and working through the issues and commenting on them.

Like I said, your Lindens are far less the shrinking violets than you are. I told Daniel Linden to his face that I wouldn't be WOOTING until the game patch dropped down on my hard-drive and worked. He said he wouldn't be WOOTING either. Honestly, they're far the greater grown-ups than you all.

[Aspen Normandy]

You make a lot of assumptions about me on no basis at all.

My point remains though. In all of the examples you just stated, you had a clear problem, and complained about the clear problem, providing a clear explanation and desired resolution.

Presently, however, you are complaining that development is happening. There is no problem with that, and you have provided no clear alternatives that would be better.

And I used the word 'consultant' because you did. "Um, I sure as hell plan to engage in as much pre-emptive consulting as I can possibly muster the time for"

But I guess, as usual, words mean different things to you at different times. So now you flatly REFUSE to be a consultant to them because I said it.

[Aspen Normandy]

Also, there are more than one side to the development issue. You don't have to be either a fanboy, or an enraged shouting voice of dissent. You can offer up ideas in a clear and constructive manner.

But you're right, you don't HAVE to be constructive. But I don't see how a destructive approach to things will help.

Constructive does not mean kissing LL's feet. It just means doing as you did before -- Clearly say what the problem is, why it is a problem, and what you'd like to see done about it.

Complaining for the sake of complaining will not bring about the changes you want.

[Prokofy Neva]

Well, observing your obsessive and cranky behaviour here, Aspen, helps me make some assumptions about you : )

If you're a 40-year-old car salesman and not a 20-year-old IT worker, well, your inner 20-year-old IT worker is struggling to get out : )

You don't seem to get that there is still a war over the tools. And the war is not among residents, but I imagine is a debate among Lindens as well -- as well it should be. And that is the age-old debate about capitalism vs. socialism, just to simplify it. Your notion that it's "over" and they are "finished" or "have a plan" and should just work in a vacuum without me commenting is simply untenable. I'll be commenting til the cows come home, as will many others, and they will tweak it -- not endlessly, but they do tweak and do listen to customers.

I really am starting to feel like I'm in a hall of mirrors here. You used the word consulting, so I did.

Well, read the transcripts of the meeting yesterday (shrugs). I think I was as polite and constructive as I could be, given that some awful things were afoot.

You have a curious, hectory, condescending tone about you, delivering dictums and cheap nostrums with bromides like "complaining for the sake of complaining gets you nowhere." Cut it out, already. I criticize with reason, for good reason, about really concrete stuff.

Anyway, I'm done. Next.

[Prokofy Neva]

Well, observing your obsessive and cranky behaviour here, Aspen, helps me make some assumptions about you : )

If you're a 40-year-old car salesman and not a 20-year-old IT worker, well, your inner 20-year-old IT worker is struggling to get out : )

You don't seem to get that there is still a war over the tools. And the war is not among residents, but I imagine is a debate among Lindens as well -- as well it should be. And that is the age-old debate about capitalism vs. socialism, just to simplify it. Your notion that it's "over" and they are "finished" or "have a plan" and should just work in a vacuum without me commenting is simply untenable. I'll be commenting til the cows come home, as will many others, and they will tweak it -- not endlessly, but they do tweak and do listen to customers.

I really am starting to feel like I'm in a hall of mirrors here. You used the word consulting, so I did.

Well, read the transcripts of the meeting yesterday (shrugs). I think I was as polite and constructive as I could be, given that some awful things were afoot.

You have a curious, hectory, condescending tone about you, delivering dictums and cheap nostrums with bromides like "complaining for the sake of complaining gets you nowhere." Cut it out, already. I criticize with reason, for good reason, about really concrete stuff.

Anyway, I'm done. Next.

[Aspen Normandy]

I guess you're playing the role of the pot in your "condescending" comment.

Anyway, I have nowhere said that LL should work in a vacuum. I have said they should get input. My point (restated for the umpteenth time) is that in your post here, you seemed to be bemoaning the fact that LL was addressing group tools. Before anything has been done, you have already declared that LL has failed and will do a terrible job.

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about my point. I am encouraging you to give them input. I am encouraging you to comment. I am, however, trying to discourage you from just throwing up long tirades about how LL has failed (in the future?) on something they haven't done yet.

[Prokofy Neva]

Trust me, tirades are *definitely* necessary. This battle is NOT OVER. There is still a considerable struggle between those who advocate socialist tools and those who advocate capitalist tools. The socialists, instead of providing for CHOICE so that capitalists can thrive, are trying to choke them off now. They are doing that because they know at root they have an untenable and unattractive choice, that can only put installed by force, i.e. by nerfing the tools to suit their own utopian visions. The capitalists are willing to have the socialist choice, because they figure there should always be choice in open systems, and they know that when challenged to make a choice in a free situation, AND pay for their socialism, the socialists tend not to spread so as to close off opportunities for others. The socialists are still kvetching about making everything commercial, capitalist, turning the grid over to evil land barons blah blah blah. Their own experiment, which not only ran in Nberg in a concentrated way, but actually ran over the entire grid for some two years or so, was an abject failure. Capitalism in the virtual form it might take could turn out to have its failures too, but at least there are people willing to pay for those failures, unlike socialists, who still persist in looking for a handout.

[Aspen Normandy]

That is exactly the sort of comment that I can both understand and agree with.

It's possible you stated it in the original post, but it was lost amidst a myriad of seemingly off topic steamblowing.

I think having the group tools optionally geared towards supporting just a social group or club, or an actual enterprise / company would be ideal. But having to pick one or the other, the capitalist/company model would be the one I'd choose.

Primarily because, without stretching the imagination too much, you could use a capitalist hierarchy to run a socialist type group, but not vice versa.