Rodvik makes The Mark; I get philosophical about virtual identity

LL CEO Rod Humble

Rod Humble once again demonstrates an adept hand and tongue when dealing with the media – this time the e-zine The Mark. It’s a fascinating piece that further demonstrates Rodvik not only grasps Second Life as a platform, he understands the importance of virtual identity. Take this extract:

The Mark: Do you think people existing in virtual worlds get closer to, or further away from, their true selves?

Rod Humble: I don’t have a clear answer on that, but I do have an opinion. There have been a series of high-profile people, from the head of Facebook to the Pope, talking about how social media should be about centering the individual – that it is all about your real life and ensuring that you don’t become a fractured person. I respectfully disagree with that.

I think that one of the healthiest things that technology can do is actually help us develop the different dimensions of ourselves that we portray in different situations. For example, the “me” at church is very different from the “me” who plays an online shooter game. The “me” talking to you now is very different from the one who will be at my parent-teacher-association meeting later tonight. We’ve always had that. I actually like the idea of enabling people to say, “In this community, I’m a completely different person, and I can hold views that aren’t going to seep into this other part of my life.” It’s a slightly heretical position, but that’s the one I take.

It may be a heretical position among his peers, but Rodvik hits the nail squarely on the head. No one in the world is ever “one” individual per se. Yes we may constantly present the same physical face to the world (although for those that wish to make use of cosmetic surgery, even that isn’t a given) – but the individual we present to different social aspects of our lives vary enormously. I am simply not the same person when among my family as I am when in the office environment of a major publishing house.

Of course, the “identity purists” will argue that this is not a matter of identity but rather of behaviour and personality; that while I may behave differently according to circumstances, my identity remains constant, as demonstrated by my having the same name on my office ID (when I have one!) as I do on my driving license. And in terms of ID cards and driving licenses they’d be right.

But they’d also be missing the point entirely. Identity is not distinct from either behaviour or personality. Rather it is intimately bound up with both, and that who were are and how we present ourselves to the world goes far beyond the a photo on a piece of paper or laminated card.

Facebook and, it now seems, Google Plus, would rather narrow the definition of identity to the two-dimensional aspects of name and photo, coupled with a verifiable address, as that better suits their marketing engines and their ability to generate revenues. I say “it seems” where Google Plus is concerned, because that situation is an unholy mess right now as regards “identity”, and it’s unclear how Google’s own tools may or may not be hooked-into Plus to reap data for their own use.

In taking this approach, the likes of Facebook are trying to enforce a form of conformity on their terms while remaining blind to the potential offered by virtual identities simply because the virtual does fit with the corporate modus operandi or world-view.

The fact is, “Inara Pey” is as much me as the person I present to business or to family and friends. In some ways she’s more “me” than the “real me” I am myself. Through her, I can integrate and publicly express facets of my personality that “real world” society would still deeply frown upon. I can, for example, mix my interests with fetish, D/s, etc., with my interests in business, psychology, politics, history, sport, etc., without (for the most part) being judged solely on the one aspect (fetish / D/s) some have determined to be “objectionable”.

She’s also a part of my psyche in other ways: she is an outlet for my writing on a variety of subjects; she represents me through Twitter and the like. In fact, I find it impossible – even discomfiting – to enter other virtual worlds without her, and so she existed in Blue Mars (as was) and exists in InWorldz, OSGrid, New World Grid, and Avination.

She only really differs in looks (although I’ve tried to mod her shape to be reasonably reflective of the “meat me”): I’m Caucasian in real life, whereas she is dark-skinnned. But even this is perhaps a subconscious reflection of elements of my “real” personality.

I say this because one side of my family’s history goes back to New Zealand, which has generated a deep interest in all things Maori in my in adult life. At the same time, I’ve been fortunate to spend a fair amount of time as an adult in Sri Lanka, and have developed a deep love for that country and its people. The fascination with both New Zealand’s Maori and the Sri Lanka people (Sinhalese and Tamil) seems to have influenced how Inara herself looks.

This genuinely wasn’t a conscious act on my part when I decided to give her a virtual make-over last year. However, the look evolved somewhat subconsciously over a period of several months, and has left me feeling that her appearance is a result of these various inner voices and aspects of who I am coming together to give her form. so to me, physical and virtual self, are deeply intertwined emotionally and psychologically; and I doubt I’m alone in feeling this.

And while she may not have a credit card or a driver’s license or a passport, it’s about time that big business caught on to the fact that she can still be a consumer (and again, that’s really what a lot of the kerfuffle about “real identities” is about: the ability to connect producer with consumer). This is because advertising, promotions, and the like that are directed at her still reach me. Certainly, they do screw with FB’s (and the likes) abilities to carry out wider data-gathering and limit their ability to gain “real” influence (in their eyes) over people – but the fact is, *if* I end up purchasing something, getting involved in something (either directly, or through my digital persona, and accept the receipt of on-going communications, etc., from a service, company or group – does it really matter if it came about through contact with my digital self rather than the “real” (in their eyes) me?

Blimey, and I haven’t even started on privacy concerns and handing over my “real” identity over to the suits and shirts of FB et al is akin to handing them power over me…

But to return to the interview with Rodvik: as well as identity, he dives into the many creative facets of Second Life and the myriad ways in which it brings people together and how they interact once brought together. As such, it not only shows (again) that he gets the value of Second Life on just about all levels, it provides interesting thought for consideration, both by those of us involved in this frontier – and, dare I say, by those who would seek to limit our ability to explore it by forcing us to restrict ourselves to their interpretation of what can be classified as a “real identity”. Not that I can see it causing them to re-think their position, sadly.

If I were to take issue with Rodvik, it would in his answer to a question concerning the future of virtual worlds and how people come together, when he replies:

“Good question. I think that something big is going to happen when it comes to online associations, which are going to run headlong into conflict – probably with some totalitarian country somewhere. It’s a broader thing than just Second Life.”

My take on this – while it is slightly out-of-context to the question asked, which set commercial aspects of virtual interaction to one side – is on the one hand he is more than likely right right in his assessment vis “totalitarian countries”. However, on the other, for those of us already living on the edge of the “new digital divide”, the conflict is clearly already here, with the totalitarian drive is coming out of “big business”. How that is resolved may actually render anything else moot for us.

I would, however, end this piece on a lighter note, and wag a teasing finger. My 40th birthday is rushing towards me fast enough as it is, Rodvik, so did you really have to go and push me into my “mid-40s” in the interview?! That’s two dances you owe me!

Rodvik’s tough future

So, according to Bob Kumin, or BK Linden as LL’s CFO / COO is known “in-world” (I use the latter term lightly, as I believe he’s actually been in-world um, once since his arrival at LL, and even then had very little to say), Rod Humble – potentially to be called Rodvik Linden, according to some – arrived at Battery Street yesterday. This has prompted some (going on the in-world traffic I was privy to yesterday) to start demanding “where is he?” and “Typical…no announcement from him”, etc.

Well…hang on! Give the poor sod a chance.

There has been lots of “free” advice handed out to Mr. Humble since the announcement of his appointment last month. When you push aside all the (inevitable) bitching about this and that, there is to be sure, a lot of sage advice contained within the responses to the announcement.

Similarly, Profoky Neva started a nice little thread in the blogs, urging three-word recommendations for Rodvik to consider. Sadly, I cannot link to the same any more, as it has, in the mysterious ways of the official forums, been deleted for some reason. Again, while there was much hoo-ing and ha-ing among the posts there, there were many replies that had more than a ring of validity about them.

But – and here’s the rub – the fact that both the comments posted to the announcement and Prokofy’s own thread did contain so much in the way of contradicting viewpoints (“Ditch Viewer 2!” vs. “Viewer 2 is great!”; “Forget Mesh!” vs. “SL needs Mesh!”; “Stop making SL inaccessible to older computers!” vs. “SL needs to keep up with technology!” and so on) that, even without the vitriol, one can see the problem Rod(vik) faces even if he merely glances at the replies.

…listening to the users isn’t actually always the best thing…

We’ve all – myself included – repeatedly called for LL to “listen” to its user base (well, I’ll actually redefine that slightly – I’ve been calling for LL to engage and communicate with us – both of which, dare I say, are somewhat more involved (on both sides!), than simply “listening”). But, what exactly does this mean, and how should LL go about it?

As Tateru Nino points out so well, users themselves have such widely varied views on things, that seeking broad-ranging input from them can – whether we like it or not – lead to as much confusion, angst and anger from said users when the outcome is announced, as simply not seeking input in the first place.

Take, for example, two of the most common cries in the responses to Rod Humble’s appointment as CEO. On the one hand people are loudly shouting for the “trashing” of Viewer 2; on the other, people are praising it. Similarly, and more vociferously, we have people loudly proclaiming that Mesh “isn’t needed”, and other citing very valid reasons why it is.

How do you reconcile such entrenched, widely differing views without pissing off at least 50% of your audience?

Of course these two examples are extremes, and to be fair, a large proportion of the “anti” lobby in both comes down to a simple unwillingness to change on the part of those voicing the objections. For example, many of those denouncing Viewer 2 do so on the basis of “having tried it for 10 minutes” before giving up – yet I wonder, when they first joined SL, how long it took them to get to grips with Viewer 1.x? Longer than 10 minutes, I’ll warrant; so why the impatience now?

But leaving aside the extreme position of these views, it does demonstrate the tightrope Humble has to walk, just where the users are concerned – and as Tateru amply demonstrates in her column with a simple little exercise.

Of course, there are “obvious” things that need to be done: stability, performance in general, smoothing out sim boundary crossings, etc., – but these are “easy” as we all see and feel them. What about the more complex? How does LL make SL more attractive, immersive, engaging, exciting – fun – for the “lay” user?

The answers here are far more difficult: ask ten people and get 10 different replies. Add to this the fact that Rod Humble isn’t just “answerable” to the users – he is in his post at the leisure of a Board that at times seems both remote from the realities of Second Life and somewhat hostile towards the user base. As such, he is responsible for heeding their collective will and turning their whims into realities – making any potential balancing act on his part, that much harder (the needs of the few (the Board) will always outweigh the needs of the many, if I might be permitted to paraphrase a certain Vulcan).

All this being the case, I’m not surprised that he hasn’t suddenly bounced into the official blogs announcing this, that and the other. Anyone with any common sense, whether they have been looking around in-world or not, whether they’ve been hopping in and out of the Battery Street offices over the last few weeks or not, whether they’ve been involved at all with the inner machinations of LL or not even from arm’s length – is going to need time to get into the office, settle down and take a studied look at what is going on and how things really work.

If nothing else, the legacy of Mark Kingdon would encourage anyone entering the role to do so with some caution. After all, he was trumpeted in by the likes of Philip Rosedale, who went on to talk about him in glowing terms – sharing the same pod, being of the same mind, etc., etc.,  - and look how that finished up (and don’t go blaming Kingdon purely for the way things went).

Given all of the above, I’m actually not that surprised nothing has been heard of from Mr. Humble as yet (and that’s taking it for granted that he did arrive OK yesterday as the new CEO); he’s going to need time to get properly to grips with things before (one would hope) he starts making massive pronouncements on just about anything.

But, that said, it would be nice just to get a quick “hello!” from him, coupled with a short statement confirming he’s “here” and perhaps asking for our understanding while he does get settled at his desk and takes time to settle in.

How do *you* define stability?

In my last piece, I questioned who, exactly, is minding the store. While my question was primarily aimed at SL Marketplace, which continues to acquire JIRAs and unanswered pleas for help, it also applied more widely to the grid in general.

Recently, LL introduced a slew of ideas in order to “enhance” our SL pleasure and promise “greater” stability. All of these initiatives were launched under Philip Rosedale’s brief “return” as the CEO. Outside of Snowstorm, which is enjoying moderate success, few seem to have actually worked.

The new policy of small fixes rolled out weekly? Nope. Not from where I’m standing at least. Rather the reverse. Now, as well as putting up with the weekly irritation of Second Life’s weekend performance gradually degrading between Friday and Sunday, I’m now finding my Tuesdays and Wednesdays routinely buggered up by rolling restarts for Magum, le Tigre, Blue Cheese, White Knuckles – or whatever the heck the latest codename for a “fix” is called – to the point where no matter where I am or what I’m doing, I’m experiencing inventory errors, failed teleports and other issues.

Similarly, even the big roll-outs continue to irritate, with teleports continuing to fail some 24 hours after the “all clear” has been given. We’re also again hearing about things like the Mono freeze-up still being “fixed”. Excuse me, wasn’t this sorted out a few months ago, among some fanfare, and wasn’t there a posting about it having been sorted?

So why is it, in the last week or so, many people are reporting the sim they are on routinely freezing up again when someone teleports in? Has a new “fix” now broken something again? Wasn’t the new strategy supposed to stop this?

Mark Kingdon was guilty of several faults during his tenure at LL as CEO – but once thing he did stand watch over was a drive to improve performance and stability.

So what on Earth is going on now?

Avatars disunited

A semi-interesting e-mail pinged up this evening, thus:

“Dear Avatars United Member,

In January of this year, Linden Lab purchased Avatars United for its underlying social technology and to integrate powerful social networking capabilities into the Second Life experience.

Today, we have made the difficult decision to discontinue Avatars United and will be taking down the site on September 29, 2010. Over the next week, we encourage you to save any pieces of content (such as pictures, friend’s names, etc.) that you want to keep. We will also soon update you on your AU Coin refund, if you have an account balance.

Over the two and a half years since launching Avatars United, we have welcomed avatars from many virtual worlds and MMOs to connect on our platform as the only social network catering to the needs of virtual identities. We are proud to have served those needs and honored to have shared this journey with you all.

Going forward, pieces of the Avatars United technology will be integrated into the Second Life platform to support a richer, and more dynamic, community experience. Read more about these efforts on theSecond Life blog.

Thank you for being a member of the Avatars United community, and part of the Second Life family.
Sincerely,

The Avatars United/Second Life Team”

Am I surprised? No. Even at the height of the Mark Kingdon “inspired” (if wrongly attributed) push that “SL = Facebook = SL”, the purchase of Avatars United seemed a little odd, even for Linden Lab, despite the latter suffering an identity crisis of its own at the time.

While there was some potential for Avatars United to enhance Second Life, the fact remains that it always was the square-peg-meets-round-hole situation for Linden Lab in terms of offering those of us already engaged in Second Life with anything truly beneficial. Similarly, as a marketing tool to draw others involved in on-line games into Second Life, its value was perhaps less than useful.

That LL had no idea as to what they should do with their new shiny once they had it was perhaps most clearly indicated by the massive flurry of Linden activity over on AU that dropped off faster than a rock disappearing over the cliff as the novelty of the new toy wore off to be replaced by the taxing question, “OK, so we’ve got it, not what do we actually do with it?” In fairness LL were not alone; the number of us who probably did the same is likely to be legion.

I’m actually surprised that AU has lasted this long; to be honest, I can’t even bid it a fond farewell.