There might not be hard and fast objectives, but there is a general aim to accumulate in-game currency to carry out other game functions like purchasing property, as well as other pursuits to be achieved. If I’m not mistaken, there is no clearly defined objective in Neopets either to make your pet the strongest. Nor are there any clear winning goals for SimCity. Are these not games then?

In any case, I doubt you’d rest your case. When mistaken you say something about thinking out of the box. Okay then, if you buy into Linden Labs’ marketing – Second Life is a 3D virtual world. No, not a game at all. Pardon me while I go play Tetris, a falling blocks simulation.

Games have specific goals. Neopets is a game, for instance; in Neopets you are suppose to aim to make your pet the best in its class. Red Alert and Age of Empires are games; you have the specific goal of eliminating your opponent or getting to build wonders first. Just to stretch it, Barbie’s Dress-Up is also a game; because your goal is to create a wonderful robe/dress for Barbie. Games need specific goals because you need to define a winning condition or condition to advance. That is the basic principle of programming a game.

Second Life has neither a game goal, nor conditions for advancement or victory. You can walk anywhere, fly anywhere, swim anywhere, dress in anything (or nothing). You can build your own house, build your own shop, rent house, shop, land, whatever. There is no way to measure your closeness to a goal. Therefore Second Life does not qualify as a game.

And IMHO, I am a Resident of Second Life too, in fact twice over. So I am not “passing judgement over something I am not part of”. And I like calling a Spade a Spade too; that is why Second Life is not a game in my eyes. To me, Second Life is a graphical version of My Space or Facebook.

I’ll issue you a challenge: go and download Second Life (it is free) and “play” it, then find for me one of these 4 things to prove that it is a game:-

-> a specific game trajectory (towards a specific destination or specific target object)
-> A specific winning condition (e.g. money, housing, ranking)
-> A plan for advancement in levels of difficulty
-> A fixed social class hierarchy, with specific rules for social advancement and engagement (user-created social classes don’t count)

If you can find any of these, I will rest my case. See you in Second Life!

Rgds,
Verander Destiny/ Witrin Iredell

I call a spade a spade. Second Life is an online game, and an entertainment medium that simulates life. It is as much of a game as 12 Angry Men is a film. I use game without any sense of derogatory connotations, and I don’t see why you seem to want to avoid that word. Games, like films, can be great art forms and social commentary. There is no need to get defensive here. Personally, I don’t play Second Life, but I do know it is a game. In any case I don’t think you are a stranger to passing judgement on something that you are not part of.

Frankly, I did not read it carefully past the 2nd paragraph and hence have no comments on that. I just commented to point out the glaring misconceptions in paragraph 2.

OK I sort of misunderstood what “Web 2.0″ meant. (Then of course, this stuff can be re-defined and is being subject to re-definition all the time.) Perhaps I should have used Web 3.0. But anyhow, I was only using this as sort of a way to connect with people. I like thinking out of the box, and this applies here too; thinking out of the box on what Web 2.0 or 3.0 shows.

I use “Web 2.0″ merely as a tag to help people relate to the topic I have and the metaphor of Second Life. I’m not so interested in what it otherwise connotes, since my main thesis is that people – especially govt & govt supporters like AIMS – don’t understand the real nature of this stuff.

And IMHO, as a second-lifer, I know that Second Life is far more than just a game, and it is rather offensive for you to denigrate it as such. Second Life is an online world, complete with its own games, stock exchanges, shopping centers and even schools and museums and churches. And the whole message is that the Internet needs to be treated as a separate world on its own, therefore the paradigm used for Internet Regulation – if any – must differ markedly from that used for say newspapers. And Second Life is the best illustration of this concept, because of what I described to you above.

Do you have any comments on the rest of the article anyhow?

Neither include a “3D geometry of their landscape”, nor is an actual “place” like Second Life is. Your original statement that Web 2.0 displays graphically what Web 1.0 displays in text is also puzzling. A site/app can be graphical (and have “3D geometry of their landscape”) while not classified as Web 2.0.

Second Life can pass as Web 2.0, but not just because it is an interactive world, but because of its social aspects and content creation as well. Also, Second Life is largely an online game and entertainment medium, so I do not see the link between it and your topic of Internet regulation.

In any case, Web 2.0 is actually a buzzword, and not at all a technical term, nor a technology on its own. It suggests the move of the Internet towards greater social content and interaction, but such elements have already existed long ago on the web and is not entirely new. In fact, the Internet is still pretty much where people communicate and where information is stored. There is no need to use buzzwords that you don’t really understand to try and say that the Internet is now a whole new world.

Wikipedia on ->

Web 2.0: Web 2.0 encapsulates the idea of interactivity and interconnectivity of content.

Second Life: Second Life (abbreviated as SL) is a virtual world developed by Linden Lab which launched on June 23, 2003 and is accessible via the Internet. A free client program called the Second Life Viewer enables its users, called Residents, to interact with each other through avatars. Residents can explore, meet other residents, socialize, participate in individual and group activities, and create and trade virtual property and services with one another, or travel throughout the world, which residents refer to as the grid.

Are you trying to tell me that Second Life is not a Web 2.0 technology?

P.S.: I’m still waiting for my last comment on the other thread to be moderated.

Lazarus and the twenty jumping lizards hahahahahahahahahaha that really made day :) sd seems to be really deadly with the shoe. Look at it this way, at least every thing is on a solid footing now :)

Any idea?

Did I just miss a full retraction? Where did you get that from Gemami? Why was it pulled form toc? Any idea Arix? :)

Why cant we see the full apology?

To be true, I hardly understand whether you guys are debating about internet regulation (the subject of this article), or on cyber-gaming. Could one of you please enlighten me?

Good to realise one’s mistake and take responsibility for it, Mr White. I do not wish to add insult to injury but you ought to have asked the misses to smack your head instead. Those comments were utterly unnecessary and a very lowdown attempt to, in your own words, cast aspersions, on a fellow online citizen.

Like Lazarus and the twenty jumping lizards, it is right that you should be ashamed of yourself.

On the other hand, I am glad you took the trouble to elaborate your position unlike Lazarus who had since disappeared into thin air. Even as I still do not in any way able to figure out the reason for your outburst, I do sincerely hope SD find it in him to accept your apologies, like he always do for those who are truly repentent.

Let’s keep our contributions to the subject matters and not make all these nonsensical attempts to discredit one another. Let’s strive to be more civilised and respectful to one another. (of course, we can reserve and exercise our right to express our ourselves in the strongest manner should we be discredited in any way)

You come back to me. You asked me a question> i gave you an answer.

Now I am merely asking you for the same courtesy; that is to clarify your statement that we deliberately heightened the perception of fear in our recent ASDF report concerning the internet.

This my question to you Mr White;

“How is it possible for AIMs to have compiled a 200 page report on the internet and yet not even see the wisdom of spending one chapter; one paragraph or even so much as a single sentence broaching the subject of the climate of fear?

WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND. And we consider this a very serious omission. Bear in mind, they are spending tax payers money.”

If you do NOT come back to me on a reasonable time, we will issue a 10 point rebuttal on why we believe your statement is wrong and a misrepresentation of logical fact. And we will just proceed to dismantle and demolish your position.

I am a tax payer. I have a right to demand that public servants who spend public money are accountable by insisting on quality and factual reliability in their work.

Alternatively, I am open to the possibility of detente; if you consider retracting the second part of your statement and annexture that you copied and pasted at #22.

Remember, I did not start this. But as I mentioned. I must have the right to defend our position vigorously.

Otherwise can someone please tell me, why was the second part of #22 even allow to go through unmoderated?

SD

Apologies but promotion of books – or any other products – are not allowed in the comments section. Comments should only have relations to the articles.

However, we are open to helping promote the book if you would send it to us through email.

Thanks.

Regards,
Andrew Loh”

—————————————-

Andrew Loh TOC, I have com-sat your position to the ASDF controller / they have re-routed to Aurora of the ICG /

This is their reply:

“Inform them (TOC), we are sorry for breaching house rules. (deleted)Promotion of ALL material in TOC for publication has been hereby cancelled. You are to stand down. Pls inform them, this is standard practice for us wherever we go so that they are clear and there is no misunderstandings. We always promote our material wherever we go. (deleted)”

We dont need your help. If we should require your assistance in the future. We will ask for it through the channel which you have specified.

Many thanks and sorry for the misunderstanding.

SD

On the contrary, I am the one who is regularly threatened here. And I must have a right to defend my case vigorously even it means demolishing his position completely.

I for one cannot understand what is the purpose of allowing comments such as 22) Mr White on December 17th, 2008 10.18 am to even go through.

The second part of his question had absolutely nothing to do with either the thread discussion or the essay. So why was that allowed to go through?

If book sales publications are not permitted on threadline. That is fine. I did not know abt that then. Now I do. And will adjust accordingly. I understand.

SD

Apologies but promotion of books – or any other products – are not allowed in the comments section. Comments should only have relations to the articles.

However, we are open to helping promote the book if you would send it to us through email.

Thanks.

Regards,
Andrew Loh

I have answered your question. Now would you be so kind to answer ours?

“How is it possible for AIMs to have compiled a 200 page report on the internet and yet not even see the wisdom of spending one chapter; one paragraph or even so much as a single sentence broaching the subject of the climate of fear?

WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND. And we consider this a very serious omission. Bear in mind, they are spending tax payers money.”

Go tell Lazarus and his twenty or so lizards, that I cannot understand why despite taking so many pot shots at me – he and his friends has not been able to land a single one on my head – they must have taken at least a dozen shots at me since I stepped into TOC – and not a single one – how is that possible?

[---deleted---]

You have to be kidding me right. LOL

SD

Comments edited by moderator.
SD, please. No threats.