1. Yah, I would guess this is for the Intel event too Ancora. Though I attended, and had some fun. I can certainly understand Caliandris' feelings on the matter, it was a bit annoying to have to join the group, and having to have any friends join teh group htat wanted to visit.

Only other comment I would have about this article, is that it's not very professional in my opinion (Not meaning to hurt any feelings here Caliandris), it's just, it more a letter from Caliandris to all these would be event hosters than an article about the problem itself in SL.

Posted at 11:51PM on Oct 13th 2006 by ZATZAi

2. Pick your poison. Slow, laggy, packed sims that could crash resulting in a failed event. Or, limited access, special invite or cover charge to manage flow and alienation of those in different time zones, limited funds, or idealism-driven.

Both will be covered negatively. It's lose-lose.

This is a struggle for anyone who puts on live events. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. The system's limitations of 40 people (okay 100 in theory, but it plainly does not work) is what event organizers have to work with. A decision has to be made and it's gonna piss off people.

It makes me question if LIVE is really necessary in most cases. I host one of the Regina Spektor kiosks, and missed the Suzanne Vega event. Vega's event got a ton of press and now it's gone and done. The Spektor loft somehow persists over the longer term. Every day, people are there, in it, interacting with it.

I love islands and I hate them all at once, because they are in fact isolated and do not mix with the native scene. Out of sight, out of mind. And yet, more control and building flexibility.

Should be interesting to watch.

Posted at 2:54AM on Oct 14th 2006 by Eric Rice

3. Here, here. I agree. I felt that way about many an event. Especially one that is happening in NYC right now...

(I think part of it is due to the fact that too many avatars in one spot, fills up the server and causes lag though. We are used to the openess of the web.)

Posted at 2:55AM on Oct 14th 2006 by Ancora Quintus

4. I think Caliandris has a valid point here, appropriate to raise in a blog. A blog isn't a newspaper, bound by the rules of the press corps. Blogs have room for opinion, and certainly for debate.

It bears noting, however, that I am somewhat in disagreement with Caliandris. Do I regret some events being "invitation only" or limited seating? I suppose I might. But I also understand exactly why this is so.

The exact same thing happens in real life. Go to E3 (which is more or less gone now), and you'll discover that the "real" action happens off the show floor, in invitation only rooms where game manufacturers wine and dine the key players. The same goes at virtually every product convention out there. It is a well known fact that shotgun marketing is less effective than selective target marketing, where you focus all of your efforts on a small number who you really think are key to your product's success.

Add to this the technical limitations and potential for disruptive griefing that exist within Second Life, and the idea of isolating an event makes absolute sense.

Posted at 2:56AM on Oct 14th 2006 by Tomas Hausdorff

5. Ah, don't get me wrong... limited seating if dealt with in a fair way, it's hard to disagree with. The Infinite Mind approach -- announcing the event is ticketed with tickets on a first come, first served basis, I have no problem with, assuming it isn't elite sent tickets first and the rest scramble for the five left.

It should be fair and open, and there are different ways of handling that, but insisting people join groups, or keeping the information about an event to a select few is what I am mainly complaining about. And it isn't directed at a particular group, although a particular event sparked it, because I have received notices about several events over the last few days which are being run on the same basis.

Maybe I am fighting a losing battle, and it is going to be essential to join up with those groups who run events that you might be interested in, but I would still plea for fairness and openness ... exclusive means excluding people, and that's what I don't like. As for professionalism ... I'm not a professional journalist any more, the whole *point* of a blog for me, is that it lets me be opinionated, but in an informed way. And weblogs, despite some people's reservations about it, does allow freedom to its bloggers to do just that, even if critical of its own products, which I think is fantastic.

Posted at 3:03AM on Oct 14th 2006 by Caliandris

6. As Eric points out, doing big events that have lots of public attention focused on them is inherently challenging.

In general, our policy is the following:
1. Pre-announce the event on our blog and tell people how to reserve seats (for free, of course, though I could see doing paid events if it made sense -- if people pay for hair, then why not pay to see a virtual Madonna perform?)
2. Provide repeaters and/or a live web stream to allow people not able to RSVP early enough to still watch in real time
3. Distribute transcripts and footage as soon after the event concludes as possible

The NYC Intel event is a really special case inasmuch as we have to be super careful to limit access to only Millions of Us employees and highly trusted friends to avoid griefing and allow Versu to focus.

If people have suggestions on how we can improve in the future, I'd love to hear them -- our goal is to make these types of things as accessible and universal as the medium will allow.

Finally, thanks for raising the issue Caliandris -- I think it's an important area of discussion that we all need to pay attention to.

Posted at 1:14PM on Oct 14th 2006 by Reuben Steiger