Lem Skall

Just saw this today. In a similar case, Adam Frisby from DeepThink is paying for pictures to promote OpenSim: http://www.adamfrisby.com/blog/2008/08/opensim-screenshot-competition-submit-your-builds/

I see a much bigger threat in Sun's Wonderland. LL's present focus seems to be on exactly the type of users that Wonderland is targetting right now: education and corporations. And, personally, I see much more potential in Wonderland for that type of users. Education doesn't need to be on the grid and corporations would DEFINITELY NOT want to be on the grid for their internal use (IMO, internal use is right now the most interesting application for corporations). Also, Wonderland offers exactly the practical features that are required by such users, without all the other "fluff and distractions".

LL's hopes may reside in interoperability. That may bring both a large number of users through cross-use and revenue from enabling the said interoperability (although it may also end up being a cost for LL).

LL had another easy choice: distance themselves from the SLB5 and withdraw their sponsorship. I am quite certain that a few sims could have been volunteered by private owners or by corps that do not run LL's risks and that could use the publicity (which would be mostly positive, at least inside SL). Instead, LL is digging itself even deeper into the role of owners of SL as opposed to simple platform providers.

"Of course, I'm not going to go into the details of these differences. This is one of those times when, in having me as your leader, you will also have to trust me in my decision."

It sounds like even LL employees may never find out what the differences were, so what chance will we ever have of finding out? And that's a shame.

I am disappointed with both of them for not being able to work together, so badly that they can't even make this final decision in common accord and Philip has to make it unilaterally. It is a failure for both of them and neither one even admits it. I, personally, would respect them more if they did. I am especially disappointed with Philip. IMO, a good leader does not call himself a leader and especially doesn't say "you will have to trust me". No one "has to" trust anyone, trust is a very sensitive thing that should not be taken for granted and statements like that can only erode trust.

Finally, a slurl was added. I'm pretty sure it wasn't there earlier.

WHERE is this in SL?

Are these people by any chance the same people who were behind metarati.tv [http://www.calebbooker.com/blog/2007/06/25/paris-hilton-and-metaratitv/]? The June 2007 "arrival" of Crescendo matches the timing. The attitude and the results match too.

"I would advise everyone to now just sit back, watch & learn."

Great public relations, Cadence. That's your expertise, isn't it? And we're the public, remember?

Congratulations on getting the title of CEO. That will show the "ever-enthusiastic" Castro who's the boss.

There are many conversations that can just as well be done by IM and in which SL has no more value than a regular chat room. However, I can think (based on my own experience) of contexts in which SL brings much more value. I'll just throw around a few ideas. It's not a scientific study and I am not an expert in the subject.

In large group discussions, even just the visualization of the group and the number of people involved matters. IMO, even the process of people gathering sets a different tone to the conversation. Other visual elements are also a factor. I have been in group discussions that were done at round tables. They always seem to have a different feeling compared to discussions done in different settings.

A great example of visual elements comes to my mind from the discussions of The Ethics group (thanks, Selaras Partridge, for organizing them). In those discussions, people take a side in the argument and they indicate the side they are on by wearing a large marker colored red or blue. Imagine youself in an amphitheatre with people discussing a topic and you know what side of the argument they are on from the big marker on their back.

Another point. It may not make much of a difference when talking to someone you already know well, but I think that in large groups with many people who are strangers it helps to have a visual image of the persons involved. Our brains are probably just wired that way.

Then let's not forget that conversations in SL are not just idle chats. Conversations can also be an integral part of activities like building or exploring together. SL is not only a medium for chat, it is an enabler and even a subject. Even small talk is better when you can say something like "Nice dress".

I remember vividly a group meeting with people sitting around a table, some drinking, some smoking, (some doing both). The conversation sometimes moved away from the main topic, people commenting about other people's gestures, movements, animations and the look of their avatars. Maybe the conclusions of the discussion would have been the same in a chat room and maybe the discussion would have even been more efficient. But it is a much more complex and more enjoyable experience this way. The group that held this discussion and the friendships between its members would probably not exist if it were not for this kind of experience.

I think that the new trend of specialized portals (like SL Brazil, the L word) are very positive. People will come into SL based on a specific interest and they will explore further.

The experience that the mentioned article is valid. Did anyone notice though that it was started by a suggestion from a manager? Exploring SL as a work task is not the right a good way to start. A valid extrapolation from that is that correct expectations are very important when joining SL.

And here is another perspective from a newcomer: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/85/8526sci3.html. Thanks to SL Reports (http://sl-virtual-world-news.com) for pointing out this article.