|
|
|
Alexa Linden made changes - 08/Apr/08 02:21 PM
Alexa Linden made changes - 08/Apr/08 02:22 PM
Alexa Linden made changes - 08/Apr/08 02:22 PM
[
Permlink
| « Hide
]
Alexa Linden added a comment - 08/Apr/08 02:27 PM - edited
Description and title changed to fit PG audience.
Alexa I can see rewording what he said to make it fit a pg audience but you essentially changed the entire meaning of his description by cutting out 99% of it.
Int, I agree with you, multiple partners should be allowed... it is however quite funny this coming from you Yeah Alexa changed the entire meaning of it. Okay here I go trying to make something fit for Beaver Cleavers ears to hear (bet you didn't know the writers named him that to get around prudish 50's tv censors)....
Allow adult residents to invite multiple persons to be partners on their profile. Partnerships with more than two members should require approval of all members for invitations to new members. Gordo: What you think I'm a republican? Sorry pal, Libertarian, i.e. socially progressive, fiscally conservative. If implemented (when implemented - you can't stop this kind of social evolution forever in SL) it may have RW implications in the media. LL may want to prepare a page on the website preparing for any (if any) publicity in the puritanical, notoriously xenophobe US MSM.
I've seen Partners also used for people in a close business relationship, as well as a personal one, and using that logic I think this change should be made.
sw.slr supports this via XFN:
http://svc.sl.net.marvulous.co.uk/resident/SignpostMarv+Martin It's probably worth mentioning that aside from displaying it for the whole world to see, there isn't any benefit to going through the partnering system in SL. Since there aren't any LSL commands that can take advantage of the partner status, and the partner info isn't displayed in the web profiles, there isn't really much point to using the SL partnering system. It's also probably worth mentioning that just both listing people in your "about" text or your picks as a partner and using XFN on a website such as sw.slr is free, so you don't have to pay to modify your relationship status (even though the fee is largely negligible ) @SignpostMarv: It's really just the principle of the thing. Plenty of folks do list partners in their about pages or elsewhere in their profiles, but for those of us who perhaps try to live out through these little features, it would be nice to have multiple partnering where it can stand for something. The Picks page is alright, but not ideal as it still requires a location to be set, and while somebody had mentioned using the Groups listings to declare one's partners, that too takes effort to find and doesn't stand out for its intent. It's kind of unromantic!
The 'partner' field is a statement, and I support this JIRA request as I feel a part of me does miss out, not being able to declare that I do have multiple partners. It's not like I'm dying a little inside every time I'm reminded of that blank field, but it could be a sweet relief. So lets say for arguments' sake that LL support multiple partners.
1) How many partners should LL support (2, 3, 4, 10, 20, no limit etc) ? SignpostMarv:
1) thats obviously something for a user survey to determine. 2) if the agreed upon number is relatively low, in a field, if relatively high, then a button named "Partners" would open a smaller dialog with a list of the partners, if more than one or two. 3) obviously data would be sorted by similar criteria as the friends list. As this is generally an issue of equity, then priorty by join date would impose inequitable situations of date seniority that could cause conflict, and would be meaningless in many situations, including when used for business purposes. I had originally voted this up just on the fairness issue (if SL's going to support monamory, it ought to support polyamory too), but I've now heard from so many poly friends that it would be annoying or they'd never use it that I've unvoted it again. Not that I'd object to it if it was done (or to anything else that would make Vidal happy
 ), but it seems of low enough general interest that I'd rather save my votes for more urgent things.
In fact the discussion around this, and my experiences in comforting non-poly friends, suggests an alternate JIRA: "remove 'partner' functions from profiles, to reduce drama, pain, and emotional suffering". I think this may be a good idea, as folk use partnerships for marriage, familial, buisiness and other reasons, so polygamy isn't the only reason it may be useful.
HOWEVER I strongly oppose the constraint in the description: "Invitations to additional partners should require the consent of all participants in a partnership." In matters of partnership TECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS SHOULD NEVER BE IMPLEMENTED TO ENFORCE SOCIAL BEHAVIORS. If your partner added another partner without your consent you are free do de-partner them should you object. If you are using partnership in a manner in which consent between partners is a moral imperative, hopefuly you sort that out amongst yourselves before you add another partner. If you mess up it isn't for the software to decide for you, it must be up to the individuals and how they define the moral and ethical systems of partnership. So... under RL circumstances I'd agree with you. there are situations where no means of consensus would wind up with it being abused, cause drama and conflict. Gorean sims, for instance, already ban any woman who breaks from her 'slavery', frankly institutionalizing that isn't something I'm interested in, however I accept that others have different views on things.
I would like to say I think Multiple partners Should be allowed I know RL laws prevent more then 2 people from getting married BUT RL laws also prevent Gay marige in most places If SL is willing to allow 2 Men or 2 Women to partner no matter what the reasons Then The polly Comunity should be allowed to have thier familys Here in this open minded virtual World . I am in an open Polly relationship IRL and I do Not see how I can be expected to not have one in my Second Life I have read all the comments and the one Thing any Polly Family will tell you is One person doesnt just propose without the concent of the whole family I do think its an idea that need and deserves great consideration There is a whole comunity on SL that is being pushed aside .
As the owner of the group PolyBi as well as IRL http://PolyBi.com
 for the past decade, I naturally support this change. Understanding also that such change would be most frequently beneficial to business partnerships rather than to personal ones.Although being purely a passive feature, it does not rank very high on my SL wish list. I wish one would elaborate for wording this concept - literally naming for this, at least in client UI... Word "partner" has other meanings and we will have (apart from getting ballistic hardcore monogamy proponents) also those who consider it as e.g. (SL) business partnership, and later discovering that others reacting slightly different then expected on them. I know that word partner is used in this ticket for PG reasons, yet it shall be clear that we shall find & use "leaving no ambiguity" word instead of word partner.
Well its left vague for a reason. If you want to use it for your romantic partner(s), you can call them your wife/husband in your profile, if you want to use it for business, you can also do so in your profile. You may also have both (those of us who have had business partners know its very much like being married).
Sue Linden made changes - 13/Nov/08 12:04 PM
Sue Linden made changes - 13/Nov/08 04:30 PM
Sue Linden made changes - 13/Nov/08 04:50 PM
Well i think its wrong not to support multiple partners....
for those that arive later to a partner relationship they can be left feeling less of a partner. the current partners might not which to change there status for fear of hurting the other.. and in so doing hurt the 3rd.... The only other fair alternativ is to remove the partner field.
Khyota Wulluf made changes - 08/Dec/08 07:52 PM
Edit: I guess I already berated Alexa for the change so I shouldn't have done it again and have removed that part of the comment. I've done my best to reconstitute the original issue in an "appropriate" manner to at least get the issue across without breaking the guidelines.
Int, know I figured you were as you say a libertarian but it still seemed a bit strange at the time. I was probably overthinking it.
Gordon Wendt made changes - 08/Dec/08 08:18 PM
IntLibber Brautigan made changes - 06/Apr/09 10:57 PM
I agree with Pavig, software should not mandate that all partners agree that you partner with another. If you look at it from a business partners perspective, it would make no sense to ask one business partner if I can have start a business with a other too.
Also from a social stand point, the system should allow for as much freedom as possible, your own social conscious should determine if you have to ask permission to others first. If the system is restrictive it would prohibit new emergent social behaviour. You want it to be as open as you can imagine, to allow unpredicted use. As for the background design, this blog post is a good starting point on how open unrestricted partnership databases could be designed. Frans, thats not what this means.
If you are in a partnership with three other people, the idea is that you can't simply add a fifth partner to the partnership without the agreement of the other three. Likewise, you can't remove a partner unilaterally. Its about consensus. I was hoping to persuade you to a more open and unrestricted partnership feature proposal.
I still don't understand why you would want your business partner to give consent to a new romantic partner, but it is your feature request. I guess I will have to open a new separate more liberal feature request. ;P I would suggest it is probably a safer idea to leave partnerships as predominantly managed by the partners rather than requiring consent programatically. If that was to be implemented we'd have to rely on whatever the lindens set down as rules for the creation of partnerships.
I would suggest the feature would be used less if it restricted the way in which it was used. I can see however that there might be call for certain enforced partnership rules where complicated systems are in place in the real world. My suggestion there would be to use an external web service (We already have web links in profile) to handle the complicated family trees that some folk may wish to maintain. I like the idea of multiple partners, and I do like the idea of a short added text field for each partner to allow a word to describe the nature of the relationship. 12-32 characters should do, with perhaps 20 being the sweet spot. (One could use say: Business, Wife, Husband, Hive drone of, Just4Lolz, etc. Again some folk would be upset that there are no rules in place to enforce certain behaviors within the partnership, but that is always best handled by social convention and consensus rather than code. And if it is to be handled by code - and i mean no disrespect in saying this - let's not leave that code to the lindens "Frans, thats not what this means.
If you are in a partnership with three other people, the idea is that you can't simply add a fifth partner to the partnership without the agreement of the other three. Likewise, you can't remove a partner unilaterally. Its about consensus." -IntLibber Brautigan Last I checked... all issues in a multiple partner business, or a poly-relationship are about consensus. Lets be statistically honest here.. There are 47 countries that have civil code and rights for polygamist relationships.. and ALL countries to my knowledge allow for multiple partner businesses. Why is this such a major issue? Why was it left out? I was surprised that LL in their response to me said "It's just something that didn't occur to us at the time." Seriously It didnt occur to you that many people, (more than 2) would start a business together? "I would like to say I think Multiple partners Should be allowed I know RL laws prevent more then 2 people from getting married BUT RL laws also prevent Gay marige in most places If SL is willing to allow 2 Men or 2 Women to partner no matter what the reasons" - BarbaraButterfly Fieldmann This was exactly part of my argument, however, you are incorrect about one thing. Currently there are 7 nations with civil laws protecting homosexual marriage and 47 nations with civil laws protecting polygamist marriage. By all accounts LL should have recognized polygamy as soon as homosexual marriage was recognized in SL. Being that there are far more countries that have civil laws recognizing polygamist marriages than there are that have laws recognizing homosexual marriages. It may be just a really bad mistake... Regardless, I can garuntee you if polygamy had been allowed and homosexuality forgotten there would be a LOT of grief given to LL. Lets also recognize that there are major religions (not just mormonism) that have condoned polygamy since their inception.. Predominantly Islam. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
New Feature
Open
Major
enable multiple partners
