« A Simple Solution to End Ad Farms and Sign Extortion | Main | Metaversed.com Going Down »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Untameable Wildcat

And it's perfectly acceptable for you to have your say here, and even to continue to debate it here.

But I've closed this issue on the JIRA because it's not a JIRA issue. You want something that already exists in the JIRA software, but - for whatever reason - Linden Labs have chosen not to switch on. That's their choice, it's their JIRA, their program. It's not yours, or mine, it doesn't "belong" to anyone but them, and it's up to them how - or even if - they police it.

Prokofy Neva

Of course it's a JIRA issue, and I've re-opened it, and you are an aggressively-conformist little tribal warrior.

Just because JIRA itself has the capacity for NOT having other people close your comment (yay!) doesn't mean that somehow my proposal is rendered invalid. If anything, it's a perfect argument for it! My God, you are obtuse if you can't see that.

Linden Lab may have thought through all the ramifications of this configuration, or made it merely for utilitarian measures, figuring they'd make the fanboyz and coder liferz do all the scut work of closing so they wouldn't have to.

Eventually, they'll have to come around on this as they can't imagine they'll control this software and its uses forever.

Of course Second Life belongs to all of us. Philip himself calls it nowadays a "public utility". We pay good money for it. It's open to the public. And the public must be free to govern it, and that means creating checks and balances against little cadres they try to take over.

Untameable Wildcat

1st paragraph: Insult
2nd paragraph: Insult

My, isn't this a little hissy fit?

The purpose of any ticketing system, which is what the JIRA is, is to raise bugs and new feature requests. I'm not aggressive-conformist, but at the end of the day, you are using a system belonging to a private company, and if that's how they want to set it up, that's their prerogative.

If you don't like the way they run it, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Second Life does NOT belong to us. Second Life is something that its creators have chosen to share with us to a degree (they haven't open sourced the server software and Phillip Linden may be even more reluctant to do that now Cory has left, since that would make it much easier for him to set up a rival - at the end of the day, Linden Labs is a company, they exist to make a profit, and encouraging competition endangers that.) but it's a false sense of entitlement to claim that "makes it ours".

And I never said your proposal was INVALID, you've used that term yourself, and tried to imply that I've said it. What I ACTUALLY said is that your proposal isn't likely to be implemented, which is - in your own words - obvious to everyone because they not only set it up that way but wrote their documentation as given on the support portal and wiki to emphasise that policy.

I realise it's a lot easier to think of me as aggressive to your point of view if you delicately rewrite or reword what I've said to fit your point of view that I'm hostile towards you, but that doesn't make it the case. If you can't see that, maybe you need to re-assess who is the obtuse one!

Untameable Wildcat

Further more, anyone who walks into a craft shop, and says "I like that, you've put it on display, therefore it's mine and I'm going to decide what happens to it from now on" is going to end up being shown the door (and possibly another, barred door) very quickly, which is essentially the logic you're applying here. Second Life wasn't created by you. It's not yours. Parts of it are shared with you, and parts of it that you can create with it remain your intellectual property. But it doesn't BELONG to you, or me, or any resident. If that's your starting point for assuming where your rights come from when you're looking at Second Life, then you're sadly mistaken.

Ann Otoole

entering suggestions for changes to the jira are allowed in the jira. anyone not an employee of LL that attempts to force their personal demands and opinions by closing jiras and/or changing the priority outside of the guidelines for priorities in the public jira need to be banned from secondlife forever. Nazism is dead. if you hate fair and open dialog then please go obtain the psychogenic medication your antisocial disorder calls for.

Melissa Yeuxdoux

Hmmm... that is one advantage of looking at everything as if it were the Soviet Union: one is less likely to trip over Godwin's Law.

Untameable Wildcat

Indeed, Melissa. My argument about Web-382 as it stood before Strife changed it was not that it was an unsuitable request, or an invalid request - it was that it was a request that could have been implemented from day one, but LL chose not to, and wrote a policy around a different way of doing things.

Somehow that got twisted around to me apparently being a nazi that closes anything I don't agree with. Godwin's Law does indeed apply, and I find it interesting how people can comment on what I'm apparently supposed to have said, not what I actually DID say.

Ann's running her mouth off, both here and on the actual JIRA issue page is a classic example of someone reacting to hearsay in a totally disproportionate manner. What is most laughable is at the top of the thread I'M the one being accused of being aggressive!

Am I? I didn't think I was... But at least I've never let things get so bad that I've accused someone of being a nazi...

Ciaran Laval

Untameable there are many policies the Lindens wrote that get changed. The idea that because the Lindens said so once, that things won't ever change is ludicrous.

Really, the clique Prok talked about is ridiculously evident all over that Jira issue, right down to agreeing with the changes made by Strife.

Untameable Wildcat

*sigh* I never said it was utterly unchangeable. I said it wasn't likely to be changed just because someone wanted that. No policy should be forever unchangeable, but what web382 originally proposed was deliberately provocative and unworkable. It would leave the system far more open to abuse than it already is. This is again twisting my words.

And if agreeing to a neutral non-finger pointing wording to something is ridiculous, well, I guess I am. But as you'll see it's been changed back to essentially the same proposal but with the finger pointing again, the "your group is the enemy, nyah nyah" that simply has no serious place in the actual proposal.

Nice to know which group of "fanboyz" you and Ann belong to though.

Ann Otoole

lmao. I belong to no group and Prok and I disagree frequently enough for anyone who is outside of their little fantasy world to know.

I happen to be mature and capable of forming my own objective opinions thank you.

Ciaran Laval

Untameable, like Ann, I can assure you that Prok and I don't see eye to eye all the time and definitely have differing views.

There is no team here. However it is pretty evident that pretty much whatever Prok says on the issue, people have just wanted to close that proposal down, which pretty much proves the points raised.

Prokofy Neva

WEB-382 isn't deliberately provocative. It names the problem imprecisely: there *is* a small cabal of coders who are fiercely tribalistic among themselves and go around closing and resolving issues in the belief this is "best for the community". The claim they *are* the community. They even say that anything against them only is "anti-community," so much do they identify themselves as "the community". If you disagree, you are "partitioning the community". It's just awful.

But they aren't the community, any more than I'm the community or you're the community. The community is diverse with multiple opinions.

I fail to see how a proposal that has its description of the problem caused on the JIRA modified and watered down to appear "neutral" with no agent involved, somehow magically becomes more workable as a mechanism. The proposal didn't change. It still involves CONSENT for those closed. It adds a status called PENDING that shows it is under discussion, but that doesn't close voting off the way close/resolve does. All that changed is the description of who caused the problem. That has to be kept so we understand that all those resisting this idea are in the small group -- it's so obvious they are. It's not like loads of other sage minds are rushing to the scene and crying "foul". It's only those who are doing the closing lol.

Prokofy Neva

Ann, I find your remarks extreme -- there's no reason to ban someone from Second Life permanently unless they have done something really extreme, like crash the entire grid, or sexually harass someone repeatedly and egregiously. I think there'd be few cases that would pass any notion of normal justice.

Therefore the answer to people who themselves are exclusivist and restrictive isn't to ban them from SL, that's a contradiction in terms.

Ciaran, I am so glad you said that. One of the most beastly thing about these tribalist conformist little lords of the flies we have on here is that they constantly bow down slavishly to the Lindens. It's really awful to watch. Even the Lindens don't demand that much slavish attention.

The 360 o turn that Untameable did as soon as Strife rewrote my JIRA in a very politicized way was a hilarious thing to watch -- and so indicative of their tribalism.

And I'm beginning to get an inkling of why people loathe Strife so much on the forums. He truly is cunning in serving his maters, the Lindens, who appointed him. He went from declaring my proposal "anti-community" because it resisted the coding cabal's closure of proposals, to keeping the exact same outlines of the proposal and blessing it, merely by changing a line of explanation. I had put that a tiny group of coders close people's proposals, and we need to have checks and balances against this.

He changes that very politically and cunningly to "issues are too easy to close" -- as if he and his little cadres aren't to blame, as they are the ones closing them!


So I put it back, and made it even more detailed. I don't fall for fake community mediation techniques like that which are in fact merely little ugly power plays to keep the little cabal in power.

Strife just couldn't fail to concede my ultimate reasoning on this: if the cabal's closures are so reasonable as he claims, what has he to fear by empowering people to consent to closures? Why, if the cabal is the reasonable thing he says, then granting consent to the closed will lead to only a handful of dissenting votes, right?

And truly, it will. But that argumentation exposes the bad faith in which he's been operating. Because it's not about the logic and the mechanisms and making a community of consent for him, his Lindens, or the cadres. It's about maintaining the rule of that little cabal.

If it's not about that, I fully expect this proposal to be left alone to gather votes as it may.

Untameable Wildcat

Exactly, Ann, and exactly Ciaran! I'm not a member of a group/tribe/whatever either. Yet both of you accuse me of that without hesitation. Take the log from your own eyes, it might help you when you look for the speck in mine!

Yes, Prok, it still involves consent. I didn't refuse to support it because of consent issues, that was your interpretation. I refused to support it because there was no limit to a time even the stupidest of griefer JIRA tickets could stay open, if that griefer didn't give consent to closing it. Such a situation would cause the number of open tickets to grow exponentially until JIRA crashed under their weight.

I never objected about consent, that was the words you chose to put in my mouth. I objected about open-endedness, and there's no magic involved in the fact that as soon as that was removed, as soon as a set time limit was proposed, I felt I could support the proposal.

Maklin Deckard

Prok, you read the forums and you expected ANYTHING less of Strife, the bully-mod of the forums?

This is just an extension of his own 'I am annointed by the game gods to protect [community/the lab/the jira/etc]' mindset. In most communities, the powers that be step on these folks and appoint someone less of an egotist. In the la-la land of Lindendom, they gave him more power on the forums as a reward.

He used, abused and twisted every power he was given on the forums, and now he's on the JIRA doing the same thing as the forums. All in the best interests of the JIRA and the players, you understand.

He (and the other psychopaths that were modding) were the reasons I ceased posting on the forums. Threads that were clearly offtopic, but were flattering to the mods or vacuum-attached to linden posteriors....open for business. VALID topics critical of the Lindens, flimsy excuse / lock (flaming was my favorite excuse...and it was almost always a LINDEN SUPPORTER flaming someone for daring to ask hard questions that got the thread locked).

As far as your JIRA post, I agree that NO ONE BUT A LINDEN should be able to kill a JIRA proposal without the poster's permission. Strife protests that the jira may crash under the weight of 'Griefer tickets'. No, an adult representative of the company we PAY would close those...not self-appointed little busybodies that have turned the JIRA into their personal playpen.

But this is the la-la-land of Lindendom (or is that DUMB) where they refuse to take responsibility, and empower little dictators to run roughshod over other players...for their own good, of course.

Prokofy Neva

I actually don't read the forums much, Maklin, so I only had a vague sense that people were unhappy with Strife and that he was recently "furloughed" or something (now he has more time to reign supreme over the JIRA I guess).

You know, I'm not sure where these better "most communities" are of which you speak. I think if anything, in the world of MMORPegs and game gods and their wizards and mods, this toadyism and pecking order is actually very common.

I think in most real-life communities, yes, you would try to refrain from having bullying leaders and toadies.

Yes, I think Lindens since unfortunately, it's "their game" for the present time should have the ultimate say to close a JIRA they found somehow totally egregious -- but I can't see them actually exercising that power especially on a perfectly legitimate proposal like mine, or even some I don't like, such as "let's mute all the neighbouring builds we don't like" etc.

I also agree with you that these griefer tickets won't come to pass. Most people, if you explain that they are off topic, or in the wrong pew, or there's an existing JIRA that duplicates them, or it's impossible to fix for X or Y mechanical reason, will close their JIRAs.

But...those aren't as common as you think. These JIRAhadists seem to live in fear that there is a storm of Luddites brewing over the JIRA ready to attack it at all times. THey live in fear of the mob's unreason -- like all illegitimate rulers.

But...there isn't any storm. Most people aren't going to bother; those that will can be persuaded. If they can't, leave them alone, they hurt no one -- and perhaps they've got a good idea, or can help sense the pulse of the community and gather votes. I don't need some smug little bastard telling me the Lindens say they "won't" change the TOS. Hey, when they have to, from external pressures like ageplay prosecution, those Lindens can change policies faster than your head can spin. They can get rid of gambling over night. So please, don't feed me that line.

Filter, move on, if you dislike somebody's proposal. Don't slather over it and bite it and kill it like a junkyard dog.

And I think your last point that the Lindens are a combination of too busy and too lazy and too irresponsible to handle the JIRA, and that's why they deliberately disabled a function of it put in by its makers to give ownership over proposals and not enable anyone else to close them. They encourage this little cabal of tribalists to do their dirty work for them, they are even more zealots than Lindens.

Nubo Timeless

While you folks split philosophical hairs, you might do well to consider that for many users with perfectly reasonable machines, SL isn't a metaverse or a society, or a new paradigm, as much as it is simply a crash-fest. When ya' gonna fix THAT?

Ann Otoole

all this stuff about the jira ...

it is real simple. and the existing state of the jira demonstrates the total lack of software engineering discipline/expertise at LL...

the person reporting a defect is the person that closes it. i.e.; the defect is reported, verified, fixed, tested fixed, then rolled into production. it is only then that the defect can be closed and closed only by the person that reported it when that person verifies fixed in production.

as for feature requests... a defect reporting/logging tool is the wrong place for feature requests. again an example of lack of software engineering competency at LL.

LL needs to change it's staff and core competency structures if they want to progress in a positive direction. the idea of the tao is ridiculous. call it what you want phillip but the gossamer albatraos was an airplane not a global commerce platform and thus the management model used for the gossamer albatross will not work for secondlife.

that being said the oligarchy needs to go. in addition whomever at LL made the decision to form an oligarchy needs to be removed from LL because they are incompetent.

nika talaj

There is no community among LL's Jira users?

There is a community if the members feel there is, Prokofy. There is no other meaningful measure. And a community has been slowly building there ... I don't spend enough time on Jira to be a member, but I do see it. If you don't feel part of it, fine ... but if others do, YOU cannot deny it them. Nor do I think you would want the world to work that way, if you thought about the implications.

I reiterate my feeling that this hysteria over the management of individual Jira issues is unwarranted. If you think an issue was closed unjustifiedly, reopen it. Or open another issue. If the mass of Jira users don't agree with it, and the Lindens don't agree with it, then it will - and should - die. Issues eventually get solved or are let pass on their own merits; their appeal to the community and to LL.

If a large number of people agreed with WEB-382, they would vote for it and add comments to that effect. I see 9 votes in the past 2 months, and much rancorous contention. If this issue had been proposed by anyone else, it would have died by now. Since there is no broad-based support for change in how the community works, and there is no driving technical reason for it, why should it be done? Is it because you have more stamina than any other person? *puzzled*

Prokofy Neva

There isn't a community. There is a commonality of users, broken up into little tribes, grouplets, etc.

Nika, I noticed you've been posting sycophantic stuff on the regular official forums to the effect that the Lindens should put moderators back in. Could you grow up? Adults don't need that sort of awful system of overlords and police informers, only the infantile do.

The people who call themselves THE community are simply NOT THE COMMUNITY. There is no such thing. THey usurp the title as if they are legitimate and recognized and respected. They are NOT. By many many people frustrated and even angry at the JIRA, or driven away by being harassed.

"THE Community" as they claim themselves to be is just a little cabal. No, you can't stop people from forming little cabals, it's their right. But you can and should expose their bad behaviour.

There isn't any "hysteria" coming from me about the JIRA; the hysteria comes from this little cabal the minute their power is challenged, the minute anybody, not just me, steps up and says 'No.'

Then they fly into a rage, typing comment after comment in mounting rage and hysteria about simple ideas that they think are "wrong" or should be "closed". Why can't they just get a life? Let them go work on proposals they do like, that they find workable, getting support for them, instead of browbeating and harassing and fisking and literalizing and belitting everyone else?

Fortunately, the bad behaviour is on display there for all to see, even more graphically than on the old forums, precisely because there are concrete proposals and bugs and then this idiocy in response, with the hysteria and Puritanicalism.

It doesn't bother me one whit if only 9 people voted for WEB-382. Most of the few hundred people -- out of the 1 million who log on every month!!!! -- are lifers/coders/hangers on/interested parties. They flash mob things they like and get their blog conveyor belts to vote.

I don't do stuff like IM all my rental groups and tell them to vote for this, I just pose the issue and urge people to think about it and vote.

I dare say most people who even agree with this concept aren't going to be bothered to go on the JIRA however, even if they are programmers (waves to Khamon!)

WEB-382 is a vital element of due process for the JIRA. It's engendered so much hate and frothing insane hysteria from the coding cabal because it strikes at their bad behaviour and the heart of their little power struggle. They shouldn't be allowed to close other people's JIRAs, full stop. There has to be consent.

And no, nobody should have to run the gauntlet of constantly reopening over and over again in the face of mounting hostility and hysteria. I'm amazed at the lengths people go to close ideas that haven't even had 30 days to gather votes -- just to get them to have the votes freeze and to push out of view anything they like.

This is definitely a battle worth fighting and I intend to keep the proposal open, and if it isn't supported, too bad, but there is no good reason to close it.

The most entirely false and cunning thing you say, Nika, is this: "Since there is no broad-based support for change in how the community works, and there is no driving technical reason for it, why should it be done? I"

It's a lie about four times over.

The JIRA by its very nature is clumsy, non-intuitive, hard to use, and not know. Most people answering my poll on it inworld say they've never heard of it.

So anything -- anything! -- on the JIRA, good or bad, supported or not, has absolutely no democratic legitimacy. None. So let's put that to bed immediately. Not even five percent of the 50,000 logged on at any one time are there. A tiny, tiny handful of SL regs are on it. Full stop. So please cut THAT crap immediately.

Number two, the idea that this tiny cabal of coders and lifers can decide what is technically feasible or appropriate is completely untenable. Why? Because a 19-year-old high school drop out is not somebody I will look to for my world to be decided, and decided as to its technical feasibility. Ditto the 30 or 40-something loser who sits on a help desk by day and hates his IT job and his boss and then lords it over everybody else on the JIRA and Concierge list by night. Or even by day as he steals time from his hated IT bosses.

So sorry, that doesn't fly one bit. No democracy, no technical feasibility. And yes, the public at large needs to be involved in these decisions.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)