Jump to content

The end of gachas is sadly not the end of the ill nature of some people.


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 80 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

Your output here will not change that.

The fallacy is thinking that your output WILL change LL's mind.   That is not what I am saying. I have zero sticks in the Gacha game.  Never sold them, bought two items, commons I was thrilled to get at a discount price, in the last 10 years. 

LL feels they have no obligation to inform their residents of the actual reasons behind their decisions.  I could care less if Gachas are gone.  But what was the actual mover that caused LL to change their mind after 10 years of supporting Gachas?  What prospective law were they looking at?  Bills and proposals are public information.  Why is the public information that led to this decision a secret?  I think the word is transparency.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/28/2021 at 5:17 AM, Theresa Tennyson said:

 

Could you explain to us how Maryanne's statement indicates that she was advocating for banning gacha machines?

 

8 hours ago, Frankie Antonioni said:

I think she has stated before that she didn't like gachas.

So, not liking something means that you think it should be banned?

8 hours ago, Frankie Antonioni said:

Just look at some old movies. On Disney+, they now have disclaimers on some old movies like Dumbo. One day, when a TV station shows I Love Lucy, they might have a disclaimer saying "Warning, Violence against women shown". And the part that the warning is for, is when Rickey gives Lucy a spanking. And to me, that would be dumb. Just like Disney+ putting disclaimers on its old movies.

 

You apparently think that disclaimers before television shows should be banned, as you don't like them. Do you have a certain punishment in mind? What agency will be responsible for enforcing the ban?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jaylinbridges said:

I think the word is transparency.

 

Which, in this case, is set to zero and remains as such. It could not be more clear.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bigmoe Whitfield said:

Gachas are gone, LL said so, whats to argue about?  LL owns SL, their rules are in play.  

ya but a certain side keeps bringing it up to grandstand and soapbox on it so...

 

here-we.gif

Edited by Finite
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Finite said:
1 hour ago, bigmoe Whitfield said:

Gachas are gone, LL said so, whats to argue about?  LL owns SL, their rules are in play.  

ya but a certain side keeps bringing it up to grandstand and soapbox on it so...

Well, Finite, though I never bought or played a gacha in my life and I tend to dislike any kind of gimmick sales methods I have to say that listening to your side of the story I developed an understanding of the other side and don't see gachas as "all bad".  It kind of reminds me of a friend that loved to go garage sailing on the weekends -- for her it was fun to make shopping into a game but was a bore to me. Same with some friends who loved to travel to gambling casinos -- not my thing but they had fun and who am I to say they shouldn't have fun in whatever way they wanted.

Of course I'm speaking to non-predatory gacha machines that give the customer a decent chance at winning.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Frankie Antonioni said:

No country has talked to LL about gachas. None. It is the result of one new owner. He doesn't like gachas

Linden defined the question very narrowly. The answer to the question being: Going forward, residents cannot sell an item which is unknown to the buyer when the sale is made

if this was about the likeability or not by LL  owner of faux-gambling then the conveyor system would not have been approved. The conveyor accords with the answer. Gacha does not, and nor does any other unknown item sale mechanic, all of which have been banned

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, So Whimsy said:

Do you have one of these stores? How do you know they make good business?

There was a post in the previous thread and in other S/L related media sites where resellers mentioned doing pretty good with the resales.

4 hours ago, bigmoe Whitfield said:

Gachas are gone, LL said so, whats to argue about?  LL owns SL, their rules are in play.  

 

3 hours ago, TDD123 said:

A lot, but do bear in mind it will be futile as those 200 pages. LL's 'mind', for whatever reason(s) is set. Your output here will not change that.

And yet since the start of the previous thread, there have been changes to how LL intends to handle similar marketing techniques in the future. There have also been plenty of other examples of proposed policy changes over the years that were walked back or modified significantly as a result of forum discussions, so to state that LL never changes its mind is a tad disingenuous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bigmoe Whitfield said:

Gachas are gone, LL said so, whats to argue about? 

This topic and "modesty" are the only topics providing drama in the forums these days.  Thus the "discussions" must be dragged out some more.

Edited by LittleMe Jewell
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

... , so to state that LL never changes its mind is a tad disingenuous. 

Hence I said, 'in this case'. I never stated LL never changes it's mind. I do however believe that end-user input is usually in the long run not responded too nor acted upon by the Lab if at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

There have also been plenty of other examples of proposed policy changes over the years that were walked back or modified significantly as a result of forum discussions,

I am not entirely sure if LL uses the forums as a means of gauging how the overall community feels about certain policies considering just a small % of people actually use them and it's not even a decent sampling size.

A Linden recently told me:

"The forums are a place of discussion only."

Edited by Finite
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TDD123 said:

A lot, but do bear in mind it will be futile as those 200 pages. LL's 'mind', for whatever reason(s) is set. Your output here will not change that.

That's not always quite true. If you can provide legal reasons, LL will change things to comply with the laws. Possible legal repercussions you can point to as it was in the RedZone issue. Occasionally residents know something the legal beagles overlook. Then you just have to give it time to percolate through the system and you end up with a better SL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

This topic and "modesty" are the only topics providing drama entertainment in the forums these days.  Thus the "discussions" must be dragged out some more.

FTFM because tv programming these days is worse than ever. 😇

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

 

So, not liking something means that you think it should be banned?

You apparently think that disclaimers before television shows should be banned, as you don't like them. Do you have a certain punishment in mind? What agency will be responsible for enforcing the ban?

No, I don't think disclaimers should be banned. But I do think they are stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jaylinbridges said:

LL feels they have no obligation to inform their residents of the actual reasons behind their decisions. 

Where did you find a contractual agreement between LL & users of SL that states LL must justify- inform- explain why they do anything?   They did announce the ban “due to changing regulatory climate” in a blog post, updated TOS & was covered by multiple blogs & several threads here.   It has been addressed.

Me looking at TOS to try & find where LL has any obligation to “inform….actual….decisions”  (they informed you- you don’t have to like it- *i dont* but it is what is & life will go on)

 

F5248049-AA6A-44FF-BE84-75D519F6C2BF.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

That's not always quite true.

Again, repeating myself here : in this case, LL seemed, to me at least, set on banning gachas. Irreversably.

If you convey they just might give in if there' s enough nagging going 'round by endusers , I'd not disagree, albeit I still find it very unlikely for them to cave in.

It' s not their usual way of operating. 

Edited by TDD123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Well... if that's the case, then LL should delete the make friends section. 

That's not how forums and humans work.

So forums aren't a place for discussion? Sorry I don't get what you are countering me about here or in what context relative to what you quoted me on. Is this one of those literal counters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

Again, repeating myself here : in this case, LL seemed, to me at least, set on banning gachas. Irreversably.

If you convey they just might give in if there' s enough nagging going 'round by endusers , I'd not disagree, albeit I still find it very unlikely for them to cave in.

It' s not their usual way of operating. 

You didn't need to repeat yourself. Give people time to finish reading the thread. 

LL was/is set on banishing gachas. It's a done deal. And it will probably go a long way towards keeping SL open for all of us.

LL won't respond to nagging. They will respond to citations of US and CA statutes.

They have been operating the same way since 2003. That has not changed and isn't likely to. The one thing that has changed is LL has become a bit more transparent than they were just 10 years ago. That does need improvement but LL will never be as transparent as we would like them to be.

 

Edited by Silent Mistwalker
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Finite said:

So forums aren't a place for discussion? Sorry I don't get what you are countering me about here or in what context relative to what you quoted me on. Is this one of those literal counters?

Forums are for more than just discussions. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Forums are for more than just discussions. 

Okay cool got it so you were just looking for *clappy hands*. There you go. I even liked your comment.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jaylinbridges said:

LL feels they have no obligation to inform their residents of the actual reasons behind their decisions.  I could care less if Gachas are gone.  But what was the actual mover that caused LL to change their mind after 10 years of supporting Gachas?  What prospective law were they looking at?  Bills and proposals are public information.  Why is the public information that led to this decision a secret?  I think the word is transparency.

Okay, since you felt the need to give the confused reaction to my already dumbed down explanation- let’s ratchet it up a notch.  Linden Lab is not a publicly traded company.  They are privately held.  They aren’t required- obligated- nor morally or ethically in default by not giving you some dissertation on why they made this decision.  They clearly felt the explanation they already gave was sufficient.  It’s okay to not be personally satisfied with it.  No one said you had to like it.  But there’s nothing devious in not indulging unhappy campers with more dialogue when they’ve already been addressed.

okay, now you can flash me angry eyes or report me for being sassy.

still won’t bolster your stance that linden lab owes you something.

 

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Finite said:

Okay cool got it so you were just looking for *clappy hands*. There you go. I even liked your comment.

Do you always treat people who are agreeing with you like they are a child? I'm not here for your approval or anyone else's. Never have been. Never will be. I'll be sure to keep any future agreements I may have concerning your words to myself. You could use a little "growing up" yourself.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 80 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...