Have you ever played a game of Mao?

You may have learned it under any number of different names but I first played it as “Mao.” It is a card game in which “the only rule you can be told is this one” – which means that you start the game with no idea what the rules are and have to figure them out by playing the game. Myst has the same basic frame – you are plopped down into a world and through inductive logic figure out puzzles, games, navigation, and ultimately pieces of a complex narrative. When I first entered SL I didn’t quite realize that despite its rather bucolic suburban appearance it was in reality one big game of Mao. Like many – I picked a name that sounded cool – with little thought to meaning or effect – and then set out to construct and dress an avatar by selecting from the many many clothing styles, communities, and choices. While I understood the meaning of these things in a personal way, I gave very little thought to what they might mean to others.

While SL is not a game in the sense that Myst is a game – it is a world structured on a number of game-like rules – many, if not all of which you learn by playing. This is a highly charged semiotic space in which the idea of “natural signs” like smoke indicating fire, rain clouds signifying rain, anatomical parts signifying “male” or “female” do not exist. This is one of the reasons I don’t like the talk feature – it brings a “natural” sign into an artificial world. Without question - SL is a completely intentional world regardless of whether people that enter that world understand this or not. As stated in an earlier blog, I opted for a steampunk look for a number of reasons but gave very little thought to how that would be read by others. Reinforcing this I found that when I first started showing up at rock clubs to dance I heard “we don’t get your type in her very often” on more than one occasion.

“My type”? How do you know my type? Assuming that the visual projected by hair, clothes, skin, animations, etc has anything to do with the user behind the avi seems like frightful leap of faith. Although I do find that the folks that populate these dance clubs (classic rock, country, techno, indie, funk) look very much like I would expect their RL counterparts to look. Why this is the case – I have no idea – fitting in, following an unspoken dress or rule code, just for the hell of it? This is perhaps a side issue – but I have encountered very few black avatars in SL – at least until I teleported to a club to hear some funk.

But this speaks to one of the central issues I see in SL – that in a highly charged semiotic wonderland of intentional signs I find that I do often take those signs for some kind of “reality” or “truth” – virtual or otherwise. I find that I am more likely to strike up a conversation with an avatar based on the way they look – which is not too far off from how I interact with people in real life. An attractive looking male or female just appears far more inviting and less threatening than someone that looks skanky or thuggish. Now I realize that the clothing, hairstyles, tats, attitude, etc in RL are just as intentional as those in SL – but they are generally images that are committed to for a period of time. SL presents what can be called “virtual truths” (for this idea I need to credit Tamar who has commented on this blog). The beauty of a virtual truth is that it is not only an imaginary truth but that it is a temporary truth – easily changed from one moment to the next (which is such a wonderful postmodern/poststructuralist idea.) This point was brought home to me when I ran into someone familiar in SL but who looked radically different from the last time I had seen them. So – it seems that just as virtual truths can change from moment to moment so can the rules of the game – which are never explicit – but always intentional.

The other night I found myself in a familiar club – dancing to some classic rock with a few SL friends – and off to the side of the dance floor was a naked female avatar – complete with all of the various anatomically correct female parts that you can buy in SL - tied to a large “wooden” X. I must admit I didn’t even notice at first – naked or partially naked avis seem run-of-the-mill. But, engaging in a conversation about this with my friends I found that they were somewhat put out by this display – it not being “appropriate” for this particular club. I have to admit if I went bar hopping in RL and entered a place with a live naked female tied to a wooden X I might be taken aback – but in a world populated with folks that can literally change their appearance with one mouse click – who cares? After some rather strong suggestions that this activity should stop the avatar was set free and spent the rest of the night dancing with his/her mistress (who did indulge my IMs and answered some very basic questions about the activity – my main question being what do you do when your avatar is tied up – do you just go get some coffee or something?).

This encounter really made me think about the Mao-like properties of this world. Ostensibly SL is a place where anyone can go to do or say anything they want. I know that folks can be banned from places and that they can transgress the spoken or unspoken Linden laws – but by-in-large it is a free play zone – provided you find someone else that wants to play the same game. But isn’t this what happens in RL? I suppose the disappointing thing about SL is that more and more I find people replicating the same issues, problems, and frustrations of RL in an imaginary world as if Agent Smith from The Matrix had us pegged correctly. If we can’t engage in a fantasy space with intentionally created characters and act any way we want anywhere we go then why enter that space at all? My hope in entering a virtual world is that I am taken out of my RL habits and concerns. This is one of the appealing things for me about Myst - I am forced to meet the game on its own terms since it does not have to meet me on mine. I have yet to find this kind of engagement in SL, but of course this may mean that I have just not found the right people or the right spaces yet - or maybe I have and they were just tied up. As truths change the game continues and in lieu of an image of the bound naked avi I leave with a pic of Derridada getting funky.

“A person who is trying to understand a text is always projecting” – Gadamer in Truth and Method

So – Blair Witch Project scared the shit out of me, as did House of Leaves, and when I was a kid Grieg’s “Hall of the Mountain King” sent shivers up my spine. What connects all three of these things is the fact that they provide the viewer/reader/listener with little more than a frame to scare themselves. Certainly the Symbolist idea of a "suggestive indefiniteness" – where they were able to create a kind of terror with little more than some punctuated silence, a few clock ticks, and an old man muttering about the sound of a scythe – suggests that this kind activity has a rich history. Obviously this is nothing new, but what fascinates me is that as the media changes the space for slippage between what is presented and what is received expands exponentially. I am not suggesting that RL is any less mediated than things like SL – after all we generally speak a language we didn’t invent, wear clothing designed by someone else, quote films, books, and songs created by others – but that liminal gap between one individual and another appears magnified in cyberspace. Each step in the mediatized frame amplifies the potential for deception, misreading, misinterpretation and over interpretation.

Part of the issue is that I place a certain amount of trust in the information my senses garner from RL. Having a conversation with someone face to face there is a feedback loop created though pitch, tone, gesture, intensity, etc that allows me to gauge reactions and level of involvement. Could this all be feigned – sure – but I am also given the opportunity to react to that. Denied this type of interaction cyberspace leaves me generally with an intentional image and words - words often clumsily misspelled. I am not a fan of the chat feature in virtual worlds because it is too specific – even when disguised – and breaks the illusion necessary for the imaginative element to be involved in the suggestions. SL – like RL to a certain extent – is built on a fantasy frame in which projection operates like it does with any text - film, novel or piece of music but with the very important difference of the involvement of a generally unknown person on the other end of the line. So – while I might be able to fantasize about running away with Mr. Darcy he doesn’t have the opportunity to fantasize back.

And this is where my thinking gets fuzzy. Virtual worlds are seductive in a way that previous media only hinted at. I don’t necessarily mean seductive in an erotic or sexual way – although that is certainly part of it – but they present spaces and avatars and experiences that are ripe for projection and fantasy – but a form of fantasy that can talk back. Unwilling to get completely drawn into this world for various reasons I am determined to remain cynical and critical – bracketing my experiences with a seemingly dispassionate theoretical eye. But I am caught by this time and time again. I doubt actions and emotions and consciously avoid any kind of RL sharing, and yet I find that I can be intimidated, scared, sympathetic and entertained – all RL emotions. By way of example I had an extended conversation with a furry the other day (I know I am going on about this group – but they are fascinating!). While I doubt all of the information offered – I have no idea how big his/her virtual member is, I don’t know if they like virtual bondage or not, and I wonder if they are just playing a role and telling me what I want to hear – but the aggression that came through in the chat was undeniable. Now if someone in this world calls me a moron with a below 60 IQ I generally respond in kind either to shut them down or spar. But in SL I didn’t – oddly to spare the “feelings” of the person on the other end. Not knowing who they were gave them power since I didn’t want to offend them.

So – while I don’t really want to reveal anything about who I am in RL I end up saying volumes about who I am because I don’t want to offend some jerk dressed as a skunk doing his or her best to offend and intimidate me. Huh. Kind of makes me wonder what other things slip through. It also makes me wonder how much RL of others I actually encounter. In the end though does it really matter? If SL is a play-full space of slippage that is constructed on a fantasy frame that encourages projection onto any and all objects and avatars then is truth or reality really the point?

The spectacle is not a collection of images; rather it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images.

What would the Situationists think of Second Life? I have been pondering this question since it was posed by my theory friend (who also tipped me to the 1000+ avatar project - http://1000avatars.wordpress.com/). While I find that I have no idea what the Situationists might think about anything, I am interested in thinking about what their thought might reveal when applied to a virtual world. SL is spectacle – no question – in some cases all spectacle and no substance – and because of this it is ripe for manipulation since it is fundamentally a liminal environment. OK lets get the Marxist shit out front. “The spectacle is capital accumulated to the point where it becomes an image.” SL is free to join. SL has tons and tons of free stuff available to anyone who wants to click on it. You can freely fashion just about anything you can imagine and your skill can create from the digital tools provided. Linden labs supplies a playground for all to enjoy seemingly without asking for anything in return. Wow – it seems like an anti-capitalist paradise – free shit and no strings.

I didn’t do that with this space – nor did we ask the students to do that (and at this point I am not giving up my groovy part free/part paid wardrobe, hair, skin, etc). The avatar project was in reality a call to spending – a visit to the marketplace. We buy lindens or earn lindens and we buy stuff – clothes, hair, fingernails, tattoos, skins, bling, dances, vehicles, homes, chat statements, genitalia, pets for very little RL money – but RL nonetheless. We freely visit clubs, dance, play games, talk, flirt, engage – but everyone seems to have their hand out. If I had to guess at the greatest number of single objects in SL I would have to say “tip jars.” Do I begrudge folks the impulse to make some quick cash off of their digital selves even if it is merely to support that digital self? Not really. But I do find I tip my SL friends – or folks who’s company I enjoy - and I am trying to imagine that type of activity in RL. “Great having a cup of coffee with you here’s five bucks just for being you.”

But Marxist critiques in the world of late capitalism are far too easy – and also – I don’t feel – get to the central issue. The idea I am trying to articulate here is what exactly is the process behind a heavily mediatized relationship? All the rhetoric about friendships, connections, emotional involvement, erotic involvement, healing, communication, etc are perceived relationships filtered through - at the very least - a user, a computer, a server (or two), an avatar, an avatar, a server, a computer, a user. WOW! Plato only ever talked about once, twice, or thrice removed – how fast would his head spin with eight? If you add voice chat and disguise the voice then the mediatization multiplies beyond this even.

So - what do I think the thought of Guy Debord and company says about all this? “The spectacle is not a collection of images; rather it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images.” And that is the main issue. This is not just true of SL – but any mediatized form – like Facebook, live theatre, film, books, RL. The interaction is filtered, delayed, asynchronous, blocked, glitched, frozen, crashed, frayed, and torn. And I find that I kind of like it that way. No substitution for a “real connection” (whatever that is since all of this goes on in RL also), but the mediatized form offers a kind of position of power much like the age old feminist critique of the “male gaze” – a unidirectional viewpoint protected by a voyeuristic stance. How many people check FB for information on people they don't want to friend, but still spy on nevertheless? There is no RL equivalent of the SL camera that can close up on objects and people without the objects and people being aware of the view. Its like living behind a one-way mirror – only everyone has one. When I first meet someone I can check out their profile to see if I am interested in talking to them. Imagine how many dead end coffee shop, cocktail party, airport lounge conversations could be avoided if you knew in advance that God was in their heart, or they loved kitties, or listened to industrial, or voted libertarian, or hated Kafka, or desperately needed someone to talk to. What I need is a RL app that scans my immediate vicinity and pulls up this type of info on everyone within a 100 yards. And yet – I may prejudge and miss out a life changing experience. Plus - I can only know what someone chooses to let me know. The real question is - should I believe them?

Subsequently – does it matter? SL is a playground – one with certain rules that prohibit griefing and other types of vandalistic acts – but aside from that is fairly wide open – just ask the furries. So in this respect it is a space in which the user can create the content. This is not fully determined by the rules in RL since SL can basically be anything one imagines it to be and thus is a “situation” that is created “to be lived by its constructors.” In many ways it is, and in many ways it is not. Ok – if I can fly why the fuck are their stairs in here? Why do people have jobs in here and get “owned” by someone in here? For me those things are somewhat problematic in RL – why replicate them in SL? If you can literally look any way you want to look or dress any way you want to dress why cop to the idealized plastic form on display in RL? Why not be a ball of light or a question mark or a statue of Don Gonzalo? Why not . . .

The critique has given way to a rant – not my intent. I guess that I am just surprised that given an essentially clean digital slate (but a slate built on a capitalistic, pastoral, suburban frame) as a species we seem to replicate our first lives in our second lives. Or do we? Is it all just mere spectacle – unbound by any RL properties or do these properties slip through despite the media? Is being a stripper, host, musician, builder, etc more liberating than being a clerk, bank teller, teacher, student in RL? If I find any truth in here it is not in the image, but in the conversation. Yes I will judge you on your appearance even though I know it is an intentional body that can change with a mouse click, but do you make me laugh, want to respond, think? These are the same characteristics I look for in friends in RL. Can this be manufactured? Is this mediatized? Can someone clever tell me what I want to hear but also remind me to tip them? HMMMM clearly I need to think on this more.

I feel like I have been violated by the media

OK – not a big entry – I have one brewing on the Situationists and SL – but it isn’t fully formed yet. So – yesterday – two events – left me feeling violated by the media. The first – someone or thing hacked my iphone and posted on all my FB friend’s walls some crap about free ipads. So then I gotta spend 35 minutes removing them all and changing my password to some unimaginably complex impossible to remember thing. Then – I get into SL to visit my favorite club – mainly cause DJ QT’s spin is a great mix of classic, blues, and house. I get there earlier than usual and the place is packed. So I move to an empty spot on the floor and start dancing. The conversation is – as always – light and fun with emphasis on playful banter and puns. This – um – furry dancing near me – and here I am not sure how to describe the avi – part bunny, part lion, part camel with a figure and wardrobe worthy of R. Crumb. She/he/it seems amused by my banter – so much so that they want to take me home as a pet. OK – I’ll play along – I state that I will need a box with air holes and some rawhide. The conversation moves to collars and tying me to a tree. Yea – as I stated – I have a real problem with authority – and I am definitely not responding to something with tons of body hair I can’t even identify. S/he/it goes to leave and demands I come with them. I must admit – part of me wanted to know where I would go and the other part was seriously creeped out. She stood in front of me for what seemed like an uncomfortably long time – the gesture of sort of waiting for me to get ready to leave. With a curt “ok since this is your first time I will let it slide” s/he/it was gone. This leaves me wondering if I have violated some unwritten furry code - like if you respond they get to take you home or something like that. If offered pet-dom a second time I wonder if I would take it - I mean - it is a virtual world what is gonna happen. The again they might get me to sell Amway - Yikes! I have yet to meet avi that creep me out more than the furries and the tinies (and the tiny furries). There have got to be some seriously wacked sub-cultures in here.

I force myself to contradict myself in order to avoid conforming to my own tastes.

I was recently reading a RS article about deadmau5 where he was described as post-social – the idea being that as a loner most of his social relationships are mediated by the available technology. This doesn’t mean that they are not social and it doesn’t mean that they are not relationships, but they are somehow different than the connections we make in RL. There is distance, mediatization, implied anonymity – although it often fairly simple to find out who people are in RL if they are not extremely careful about setting up things like emails, blogs, second lives and beyond. As I have explained before - these tools offer information and occasional connections, but for me there is always a shred of doubt. Everything anyone tells me in a virtual environment could be true or false or somewhere in between. Which is fine since what I find interests me most is the conversation itself – on whatever level it transpires – post or other wise.

The other day while in-world I had someone send me a friend request after about 30 seconds of sharing the same space. My IM question to them was – why would you want to friend me – you know nothing about me – I could be a stalker or psychopath (as well, I suppose, could anyone I have digital or real world communications with). We ended up having quite an interesting conversation about post-structuralism – so my defenses lowered and the request was accepted. And this is where I catch myself. Not wanting a “real” or “truth-full” connection I substitute a kind of wry intellectualism for emotion – which pretty much amounts to the same thing. Unwilling to accept or acknowledge or develop an emotional connection in a mediatized environment I find I am a sucker for the intellectual conversation. How is this any different? How is having a light-hearted or otherwise discussion about mediataization, post-structuralism, or simply looking forward to the evening’s dance club chatter any different from using SL (or any social network or virtual world) to discuss work or family issues, fears, longings, desires or otherwise? Cultivating that cool detached aesthetic so often linked to postmodernism (and in my mind the evolving clockwork exterior) belies connections that are often presented as mere surface, but in reality cut much deeper.

This is what I didn’t see until I explored an out-of-world via in-world exchange. And I realize that focused on one particular aspect of virtual worlds I often miss or fail to acknowledge what is really going on. Paul De Man hit it on the head with the idea of blindness and insight – which are two poles seemingly hardwired into human nature that are hard to avoid. We see something because we are looking for it, but often miss how we see. And I find that this is a large part of what I am interested in exploring in SL – a sort of faith-based approach to the digital. I don’t necessarily mean this in a religious or spiritual way – although that is certainly there – but the kind of unshakable belief in something – anything – that is taken for “truth.” I send a response out in SL or through FB or via email and honestly do not know who is on the other end. And yet, I am engaged in and place faith in the response.

Now it is possible that all these social networking sites are in reality an elaborate and bizarre Turing Test designed to gather information about our likes and dislikes, our syntax and our shopping habits. This may seem like some kind of sci-fi paranoia but keep in mind that the folks that created Google set out to develop a kind artificial intelligence – which is why places like Amazon seem to know what books, music, and video games I am likely to buy and why my local supermarket knows what its clientele are most likely to gravitate toward. I mentioned the other day in class that Orwell’s frightening picture of Big Brother in 1984 developed in far more insidious ways than he had imagined. Not only are we watched all the time (and recorded, and sorted, and noted) – but we largely pay for that service. If many of us are now post-social is it possible that we are also post-informational? I do tend to rationalize the fact that I really don’t care one way or another. I deny truth in a digital environment but for some reason have faith in the conversation as a means of expressing or exchanging ideas - true or otherwise. I am not quite sure what to do with this yet – so in the meantime here is a picture of me riding a sheep.

They say compassion is a virtue, but I don’t have the time

I suspect that my wife is suspicious of social network sites like SL and FB because she assumes that real emotions and real connections occur there. I am suspicious of them for exactly the opposite reason. Part of the beauty of digital age technology is the distance – both physical and emotional. Its like standing on the edge of a very interesting party hurling bon mots and pot shots at will, knowing that you can bolt at any time. I find that I am more likely to engage folks in these spaces who enjoy this kind of superficial connection. This hearkens back to the notion of a play-full space in which riffing on what someone just said is largely the point. But I do realize that there are people in here (in this great vast metaverse – yea I just read Snow Crash) that seek true and meaning-full connections. This is where it gets a bit weird for me – it is also where it gets a bit theoretical.

The Prague school was a collection of talented and brilliant semioticins that studied things like literature, mythology, folk tales, clothing, and performance. Their theory of how a “stage character” is created has a lot to do with how avatars function. Built on a tri-partite system that involves an actor, a stage figure, and a character in which the stage figure is what the actor creates (based on text, body, voice, movement, etc) and the character is what the audience sees and hears. Both stage figure and character are interpreted – which leaves a great deal of room for miss-reading, miss-interpretation, and play. When and if true connections happen in cyberspace they are rarely unmediated. Swiping the tri-partite system and applying it to virtual worlds I find that the technology presents a user, an interface (things like programs, browsers, etc), and finally an avatar (like a character – an easy object to project on). The point here is that what is often taken for a singularity (a character, an avatar) is in actuality composed of multiple pieces. I find that as long as the banter remains on the level of superficiality this system works for me – but beyond that my suspicions are aroused. I doubt, I bracket, I filter – I approaching everything in these spaces with a wry phenomenological eye. It is not a matter of wondering if what I am seeing is true – but suspending all judgment that any truth can be found here at all. This is part of what I like about setting the camera so that I can watch my avatar – I am always at a distance peering into another world. And then I get an IM.

This is a feature that I shut off in FB almost immediately. Its too insistent, too demanding, too – “answer me now!” for my tastes. But for some reason I like it in SL. I like the fact that there can be multiple conversations going on in the same space. What unnerves me is the implied privacy of the IM space. In RL I let very very few people inside that tiny, fragile, private space of real thought, real emotion and I am always caught off guard when folks I barely know try to open that door. No offence – I realize that some people are more open than others and that part of the draw of virtual worlds is a kind of anonymity that allows real connections to develop. I am not sure I am here for that. As discussed below – my avatar is basically in Stempunk mode – but slowly evolving into a kind of clockwork avatar. My hope is that this appearance will be a tip that there is nothing beyond the metallic exterior except a cold-hearted machine driven by gears and cogs. It will respond to the given information, but offer nothing of any depth. And I wonder about this – are those in SL looking for true emotional connections more likely to appear “normal” (or human, or some digital equivalent)? But right now I love the dancing – when it

is good it is a shared space where people banter, riff on each other, give each other shit while listening to some good tunes (check out the Black Dragon Tavern on a night when Shannon and melqt are there – you won’t regret it). The beauty of these encounters is that they are

effortless. I find very few times of the day when I can just sit and listen to music and not feel like I should be doing something else. In SL the

dancing occupies that need to produce – to do something – the rest is just fun. As I become more comfortable in this space my approach to it may change. I may develop life-long deep connections to people I don’t really know. I doubt it. But for now the dancing will suffice.

I'm blogging as my avatar dances

I know I seem somewhat obsessed with this dancing thing – but it is a fascinating 21^st century space to meet interesting people and listen to music that is not at deafening levels. I had a great experience clicking on someone’s profile. She had this wonderful quote about how important play is in life. I IM’d "her" for the title of the book the quote was from and we proceeded to have this extended conversation about play, life, education, perception and outlook. Now I may have had this same conversation with a random person at Starbucks, but it is unlikely I would ever be able to find them again. Not only does the computer hold a record of this conversation, but allows me to friend this person and find them again in the future. From the bar conversation I gather they are in Europe somewhere – another difficulty in this world. I find that the music in these spaces is only a shallow part of the draw for me. If the conversation is interesting – I go back. The fact that there can be multiple levels of conversation going on at once is another draw. Another club and another interesting conversation with an elementary school teacher. Interesting how education was a theme in both conversations - but from very different perspectives. It is like being at a great party where everyone has something cool to say and you get to talk to all of them with out having to ask "what?" every five seconds. Space becomes layered and conversations become entwined – but generally only from a single perspective. Private conversations, public conversations, add to this facebook asynchronous conversations, email conversations, conversations where I may be split between 5 or 6 spaces at the same time. Hard to imagine this in RL. But space is only defined by the avatars that are there. I find myself in the same space with different folks and my interest level is nil. Since SL is not a “game” with any tangible outcomes – community and experience are the only things that seem to be left – well – that and buying stuff – or finding free stuff – or making stuff – but stuff is important. In this respect SL is not too much different from RL – just on more of a global scale. The space of thousands of miles shrinks into the space of a teleport (have I mentioned how much I love the teleport sound – almost as much as I love the Mac start-up sound and the Play Station sound – highly underrated design aspects). These random connections are what humanity seems to thrive on – like minded folks with whom to share a few turns of the globe dressed as if they were 4 and had an unlimited closet to pick from. What more could you ask for.

My Real-World Avatar

So – yea – the other day I came to class dressed in a close approximation of my avatar. I found it interesting that the only person who asked me why was from another class. Perhaps it was self-explanatory. Perhaps no one wanted to find out, or perhaps the students just thought – OK so he is dressed like this today. I am fascinated by choices that we might make in a virtual environment – of size, shape, color, dress, action – that we would never do in this world. The obvious question perhaps is if the avatar is some symbolic representation of what we really want to be but can’t for one reason or another. The again, it just might be that in places like Second Life we can wear cool clothes that don’t cost very much and there is really no situation where we will be dressed “inappropriately.” But I return to the notion of an “intentional body” (as opposed to an accidental or inherited one). How much of our selves in the real world is determined by us and how much by our upbringing, education, career path, language, experiences, and mental and physical heights and limitations? Do these things matter in SL? I don’t know – but I figured one way to start thinking about these questions was to bring a bit of that world into this one.

Field Trips

It has been a while since I was on a class field trip. A number of people you are familiar with – some more than others – jostled together into an educationally rich space. The normal questions arise – did everyone make it from the last place to the new one? Are there certain areas we are allowed to go and other not? What the hell does this trip have to do with this class anyway? What surprises me is that I feel I am learning a great deal more about Second Life, and virtual worlds in general, by traveling in a pack then I did traveling solo. In almost every place we have visited someone outside of our group has commented on what a strange group of people we are. After the presentation of the avatars all of them make perfect sense to me – and I must admit I am used to seeing them – so to comment means that somehow we look different from other avatars that these folks encounter. Which I find odd. Why – given the choice – would you not dress as a hotdog, giant robot, pig, flame twirler, super villain, or ball of light? While I do see unique clothing, hair, and movements in the places I visit solo, I do not often run into dramatically unusual avatars. Is it just us, or does everyone go through the funky avatar stage before they settle down into a nice “human” looking avatar?

I must admit that I consider the “avatar” an evolutionary work in progress – never done. When I first entered the world I felt out of place because I was walking around in the free cloths, hair and skin. I felt that to join this world I needed to experience that part of it. And this is where we started the class – “here is some money now go and create an avatar.” Would the results have been different with no money? Could we have asked you to adapt the freebie stuff to your own look? Would we get different reactions traveling as a group? “My how – um – young you all are”? Is this how SL is set up – conformity in one way – buying stuff – but another kind of non-conformity – strange avatars? Is it part of this consumer-based SL culture that I feel the need to buy stuff just to fit in? Is this whole world really just a process of domestication and gentrification? Why do I keep longing for a virtual house as a place to put my stuff? Why, as Bob pointed out, do most places in SL look like suburbia?

But I digress. We have collectively visited 6 locations – a peaceful space resort where you can do Thai Chi, a zombie killing hut dangled above the ocean, Rivendell – sans Elrond, a dance club, a theatre complex and the NMC campus. While we did encounter the “you look strange” element in a few of these places we were only kicked out of one – the dance club. Why? I have no idea. An IM to the banner yielded no reply. But it did cause me to wonder about unspoken rules here in SL. Were there too many of us? Were we acting inappropriately? Did our host (who set up a blanket invitation on the events page by the way) not like how we were dressed? Until he replies we will never know. But it does tell me that I will occasionally transgress an unspoken pack and the result will be that I am locked out of certain areas of SL.

I have had other encounters at dance clubs that reinforced unspoken rules. The universal “Hello Derridada” when I enter a place with folks who all have their tip jars out. I was also told that I was “blocking my frame of reference” – which I suppose is a polite digital way of saying – “you are dancing too close to me you noob.” But dancing in general is an odd thing in SL. I am not sure that I can explain why I find it fun, but I do. I guess it is because it is a social event that I rarely partake of in the real world. In SL – I could care less what my Avi looks like. Plus he knows WAYYYYYY more dances then I do. There is also the banter. Folks tend to talk and riff on each other while dancing. Kind of like a free play zone. It’s hard to get this kind of activity going in RL with strangers. Plus, and this is where it is starting to feel odd – there is a certain “realness” to these encounters. Returning to a dance club I had been a week ago I was recognized and welcomed – not as a potential tipper – which I was – but perhaps a friend – or at the very least – someone to kill some time with. I need to investigate this more.