Concerns about Experiences

[Mollymews]

17 minutes ago, Estelle Pienaar said:

Originally there was no force sit function with experiences. It was only added several months later by the Lab. They probably just haven't updated the permissions dialogue...

ah! yes. Thanks

suggests then that nobody much noticed that they never got advised about being force sat. A question then is: Did anyone care that they weren't ?  And if the text of the dialog text got changed to: "Please accept XXX Experience to continue. [Accept] [Decline], would anyone care thereafter if experience capabilities were applied to them after Accept ?

[Gabriele Graves]

On 9/10/2019 at 10:26 AM, Love Zhaoying said:

Because they are paranoid and ignorant (meant in the best way).

This is just one (and by no means the only) example of why this topic and others like it cannot be discussed with any sincerity here on the forums.  Anyone who has valid but opposing points of view to the those who engage in these tactics often avoid these topics like the plague because they will be jumped on,  ridiculed and dismissed.  That isn't a valid discussion at all.  This is exactly why this topic is mostly an echo chamber for those who engage in such tactics and was always going to be.  Such people don't want an honest discussion, they just want to shut down those who disagree so there is no danger of their toys being taken away from them.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

This is just one (and by no means the only) example of why this topic and others like it cannot be discussed with any sincerity here on the forums.  Anyone who has valid but opposing points of view to the those who engage in these tactics often avoid these topics like the plague because they will be jumped on,  ridiculed and dismissed.  That isn't a valid discussion at all.  This is exactly why this topic is mostly an echo chamber for those who engage in such tactics and was always going to be.  Such people don't want an honest discussion, they just want to shut down those who disagree so there is no danger of their toys being taken away from them.

Do you deny that those with concerns about Experiences are ignorant of the limitations (can’t take L$, etc.) and paranoid about the possibility? This is what I meant by “in the best possible way”. I was not being judgmental, I was being literal.

[Gabriele Graves]

7 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Do you deny that those with concerns about Experiences are ignorant of the limitations (can’t take L$, etc.) and paranoid about the possibility? This is what I meant by “in the best possible way”. I was not being judgmental, I was being literal.

Yes absolutely I deny it, because that is a gross generalisation that is immediately false when it is applied even just to me.  There certainly will be people who fall in that category but you didn't qualify it that way, you said "those with concerns" - as a blanket statement.  It certainly seems judgmental and "the best possible way"  doesn't explain anything.  It is easy for someone to say they aren't being judgmental after the fact and to be honest it still seems judgmental to me even after your follow-up.

Besides, my post isn't all about you.  That is why I said "(and by no means the only)".
 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Gabriele Graves

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Gabriele Graves said:

"those with concerns" - as a blanket statement.

“Concerns about Experiences” is the title of the thread. Hmm, how can I rephrase my clarification so as not to offend?

Here’s a try: Perhaps those with concerns about experiences fall into several categories. In one category, they simply may not be aware - or lack knowledge - of the limitations of experiences (they can control your avatar, but cannot take L$, etc.). And in another category of those with concerns about experiences, perhaps there is a lack of trust that the experience is “safe” (cannot take L$, as an example). 

So instead of “ignorance and paranoia”, do you find “lack of knowledge” and “lack of trust” more acceptable?

[Gabriele Graves]

28 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

“Concerns about Experiences” is the title of the thread. Hmm, how can I rephrase my clarification so as not to offend?

Here’s a try: Perhaps those with concerns about experiences fall into several categories. In one category, they simply may not be aware - or lack knowledge - of the limitations of experiences (they can control your avatar, but cannot take L$, etc.). And in another category of those with concerns about experiences, perhaps there is a lack of trust that the experience is “safe” (cannot take L$, as an example). 

So instead of “ignorance and paranoia”, do you find “lack of knowledge” and “lack of trust” more acceptable?

Surely you can understand how someone might take what you wrote for a flippant blanket judgemental remark even if you didn't mean it quite that way.

For what it is worth, I think the addition of "may not be aware" is far better and yes "lack of trust" is better "than paranoia"  because they do not mean the same thing.
Look, I can only go by what I read and how it looks to me.  Don't sweat it too much, even without your post even being there, I would have still written most of what I did but without using your post as a springboard because it is relevant to how I see the responses in this topic generally and other topics that cannot really be discussed properly.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Gabriele Graves

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Surely you can understand how someone might take what you wrote for a flippant blanket judgemental remark even if you didn't mean it quite that way.

Perhaps. All I can do is keep changing my response in an attempt to pass your filters. I tried!

[Gabriele Graves]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

Perhaps. All I can do is keep changing my response in an attempt to pass your filters. I tried!

You don't have to do anything for me.  You write something, I write something and we both say what we see.

[Love Zhaoying]

58 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Anyone who has valid but opposing points of view to the those who engage in these tactics often avoid these topics like the plague because they will be jumped on,  ridiculed and dismissed.  That isn't a valid discussion at all.  This is exactly why this topic is mostly an echo chamber for those who engage in such tactics and was always going to be.  Such people don't want an honest discussion, they just want to shut down those who disagree so there is no danger of their toys being taken away from them.

Please read what you wrote above, and explain why it is not a “blanket statement”.  Aren’t you doing exactly what you accuse others of? Note that my original post was in no way or fashion intended to “shut others down”. It was intended to generate discussion, which it has - through you.

[Gabriele Graves]

15 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Please read what you wrote above, and explain why it is not a “blanket statement”.  Aren’t you doing exactly what you accuse others of? Note that my original post was in no way or fashion intended to “shut others down”. It was intended to generate discussion, which it has - through you.

I'll try to explain.  I thought your remarks sounded judgmental and flippant, after all nobody wants to be labelled as "paranoid and ignorant" especially when that isn't true or isn't true in an blanket sense.  So following on from there it seemed to be a remark that stood out to me and fit in with other flippant and dismissive remarks I have been reading here that I feel contribute to shutting down opposing views and always follow these kinds of discussions (I guess you can say this is a blanket statement but some blanket statements are true if qualified appropriately - for example: All living humans breathe air).  So it was guilt by association I suppose.  If you truly didn't mean to be dismissive and belittling of the opposing views then you can safely consider that my comments do not apply to you.  Mostly I don't see this from you and so I was surprised to see it.  Also it was written hours ago without any further follow-up, so I took that to mean that it was to be take as read.  I am happy to accept that was not your intent.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Gabriele Graves

[Love Zhaoying]

12 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I feel contribute to shutting down opposing views and always follow these kinds of discussions

I don’t usually see other’s comments as trying to “shut down” a discussion, except when they start saying things like, “and that is the final word”, or “this thread should be closed”, or “any other opinion is wrong”, etc.

[Gabriele Graves]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I don’t usually see other’s comments as trying to “shut down” a discussion, except when they start saying things like, “and that is the final word”, or “this thread should be closed”, or “any other opinion is wrong”, etc.

We clearly see different things.

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

We clearly see different things.

This is good! A plurality of opinions is healthy.

[Qie Niangao]

12 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

“Concerns about Experiences” is the title of the thread.

The thread has mostly been about the permissions and more specifically the permissions request associated with Experiences. Maybe that's not where the concerns arise, but I'm really not understanding what else would be a concern of the general public.

There's no reason the public even needs to be aware of how KVP is used by Experiences. It doesn't entail asking any permissions to store and retrieve data from an Experience's persistent store, so this doesn't seem a likely candidate for concern.

In some meeting I attended, somebody said that the AVsitter Experience has been problematic, but it wasn't a setting where I could follow-up. Does anybody know what the concern could be with that Experience? It's one that I use in a large number of items. I guess I could use it to attach something ugly to a visitor but there's every incentive to keep me from doing that. Could it be used by griefers? I guess, but the worst-case scenario would be some folks might disable that Experience for a while, which wouldn't seem to satisfy much drive to grief. So does anybody know what the fuss is about it?

I guess the other thing I don't understand is what preferable alternative would offer similar seamless user experiences. Are people actually preferring RLV with its much more intrusive control that largely skirts the whole built-in Permissions system?

Here's a little example I recently hacked for my Bellisseria houseboat: when you've finished with an AVsitter Experience-equipped tropical beverage auto-temp-attached with a mere touch,

• walk up to the diving board and without needing to click on anything (using a local Experience) bounce on the board and choose a dive from a dialog box;
• when the dive is complete an auto-temp-attached swimmer HUD immediately gives the avatar floatation merely by virtue of being in the water,
• allowing you to swim to a net which on contact you automatically climb back up next to the diving board,
• perhaps to dive again, still without needing to touch any of the scenery or props.

So there's this sequence of animations and in-world interactions happening naturally by merely navigating the avatar around the scene.

Now not everyone wants to go diving at my houseboat, but AFAIK this little natural-interaction vignette is only possible using Experiences. Or theoretically RLV. Or is there some other means that Experience-concerned folks would find preferable?

[Gabriele Graves]

I want to say one more thing in this thread and then I am done:

"An inability to understand a point of view does not mean it is devoid of all merit." - you can quote me on that.
 

[Love Zhaoying]

11 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

"An inability to understand a point of view does not mean it is devoid of all merit."

Ok, done.

[Lucia Nightfire]

12 hours ago, Estelle Pienaar said:

Originally there was no force sit function with experiences. It was only added several months later by the Lab. They probably just haven't updated the permissions dialogue...

It was added several years later. All experience functions from llSitOnLink() to now do not make use of experience permissions script events and instead use their own synchronous error control return which is better flow control.