We just watched Ready Player One again and..........

[Jules Catlyn]

At the end they mention that the new owners of that digital world shut down that world for 2 days a week.On Tuesday and Thursday. So people dont forget their RL life. This might be an unpopular opinion but i would not be opposed to Second Life being down one day a week. I am curious what others think.

[Ceka Cianci]

It used to be like that.. Now it's more  just rolling restarts.

[Kathlen Onyx]

16 minutes ago, Jules Catlyn said:

At the end they mention that the new owners of that digital world shut down that world for 2 days a week.On Tuesday and Thursday. So people dont forget their RL life. This might be an unpopular opinion but i would not be opposed to Second Life being down one day a week. I am curious what others think.

I would be opposed to that because what if the only day you have free is the day they shut down? You wouldn't expect someone to change their RL to work around SL would you?

Edited October 6, 2021 by Sam1 Bellisserian

[Arduenn Schwartzman]

17 minutes ago, Jules Catlyn said:

i would not be opposed to Second Life being down one day a week

I bet that would be the one day in the week real-life allows me to be in Second Life.

[Update] @Sam1 Bellisserian beat me by 5 seconds with a similar comment.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Arduenn Schwartzman

[Prokofy Neva]

17 minutes ago, Jules Catlyn said:

At the end they mention that the new owners of that digital world shut down that world for 2 days a week.On Tuesday and Thursday. So people dont forget their RL life. This might be an unpopular opinion but i would not be opposed to Second Life being down one day a week. I am curious what others think.

Second Life, like a lot of game worlds, used to be down on Wednesdays, I believe, in the early days. Then this somehow became unacceptable.

[Jules Catlyn]

I know in the past it was that way. I am just contemplating the concept. I am not saying a fixed day of the week. Just a day in the week.  I can see how some would see complications.

[Ceka Cianci]

I think for a regular game things like that would be good..

SL has a very real economy with real businesses, as well as help groups that reach over and help people in the RL.. Then you also have a big amount of retiree's as well as people that are disable that SL may be a large part of their RL..

I think the main reason that in Ready Player One, They did that was so that people would get a break from virtual reality to get out and spend more time in the real world.

The reality in this world is, there is some reality to it where it crosses over.. Where in regular games like WoW or 3rd person shooters and battle royals and things like that, there isn't that cross over.

When I started back in 2006, I think most of the other users I met were in their 30's.. Not all, but most..Some were way older and some were around my age in their 20's..

I think there is a much older more settled in and established user base here than in most worlds..

That's from my perspective of what I've noticed about this world anyways..

I think it really isn't needed as much here than in other things, I guess.. hehehe

[Yhishara Cerise]

1 hour ago, Jules Catlyn said:

At the end they mention that the new owners of that digital world shut down that world for 2 days a week.On Tuesday and Thursday. So people dont forget their RL life. This might be an unpopular opinion but i would not be opposed to Second Life being down one day a week. I am curious what others think.

What if people only have the time to log in to Second Life on the one day they choose to do this?    They have thousands of residents all logging in at times when they are able to  because they already have full busy real life schedules.  There are games that bring the servers down for maintenance and that sometimes means people have to reschedule their plans and that's okay once in a while.  If it's a regular thing they will simply find something else to do for their personal downtime.   I don't know though - I guess I just figure that companies like Linden Labs shouldn't be playing the role of counsellor, police, and moral compass for our real lives.  When in world - sure they can govern things like our conduct but I think it crosses a line when they say "You can only be logged in for this long and then we are cutting you off out of concern for your well being."  To me that just comes across as fake.  They aren't really concerned about our mental or physical wellbeing.   That concern is OUR responsibility not theirs. 

Edited October 6, 2021 by Yhishara Cerise

[Bree Giffen]

I think it's a good sentiment to have but as others are saying the actual implementation is not ideal. I have seen pop up reminders to take a break after playing too long in some games. That seems like a good idea. My phone has an activity tracker to let you monitor what apps you are using and for how long. Maybe a little summary of your weekly usage should appear in the SL login screen.

[Chris Corvinus]

5 hours ago, Jules Catlyn said:

At the end they mention that the new owners of that digital world shut down that world for 2 days a week.On Tuesday and Thursday. So people dont forget their RL life. This might be an unpopular opinion but i would not be opposed to Second Life being down one day a week. I am curious what others think.

God forbid we have to actually go outside to argue with people in person.

[Janet Voxel]

Bad idea, simply because there are people actually make a living from Second Life. Then there's the countless people with a myriad of social anxieties for whom SL is their only social outlet.

If you can unplug from Second Life every once in a while, you definitely should, but it shouldn't be forced on you.

[Teagan Tobias]

 

I don’t think its a good idea, for me I don’t play computer games except a card game from time to time. But if SL were to shut down for some period of time I would need to look around and find something else to do on those days. And just like when I found SL, it replaced other things I was doing. So while looking around if I find something that will need my attention I may not come back to SL (as often), not likely for me but for some it may work that way. Force people to look around more than they normally would and you may not like what happens.

 

[Yukiko Yeshto]

It's not like we lived in a dystopian world as it is shown in the film, or described in the book. Also, I struggle to grasp the idea of making LL responsible for our (life) decisions. 

[Orwar]

   It's an awful idea.

   What about the people who are in SL because they can't be 'in RL'? People who are stuck in their homes with physical injuries or mental issues that isolate them from their communities. What about the people who rely commercially on Second Life? Or people whose schedules already limit their SL time to one day per week - if that's on that day, they're gone.

   People have their own responsibility to decide how much time to spend in SL, or anywhere else virtually. Shutting SL down a day in the week won't stop people from being on their computers, it is not going to make them go outdoors to be healthy and active - they'll most likely spend that time on some other virtual platform instead.

   There's a reason why most online services place such high a priority on being available as much as possible, keeping maintenance to a minimum generally scheduled in low-pop hours - because as soon as their product becomes unavailable when people want to use it, those people will start looking elsewhere for other things instead.

   If, as an adult, you are incapable of limiting your online time to a point where it becomes unhealthy and has adverse effects on your real life, that's an issue you really ought to bring to a psychiatrist. Closing down the platform for everyone at certain times is not a rational scheme to help people.

[Anna Nova]

I suggest it is shut down for 3 days, Friday through Sunday.  Then I don't have to choose between SL, Church, Mosque, Synagogue, or Formula 1.

[Silent Mistwalker]

The more you try to control people and their lives for them, the more they are going to rebel.

Get your grubby paws off mine before I chop those paws off.

 

Edit: The grubby paws part is just an expression. It's not meant as an insult.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Silent Mistwalker

[Coffee Pancake]

11 hours ago, Bree Giffen said:

Maybe a little summary of your weekly usage should appear in the SL login screen.

There is nothing quite like the utter despair you get when typing /played in WoW chat and then going off to do your dailies.

Don't ruin people's escape by making them feel bad about it.

Don't police people's lives based on your own.

[June Starlight]

12 hours ago, Bree Giffen said:

Maybe a little summary of your weekly usage should appear in the SL login screen.

There are programs that allow users to monitor how they are using their screen time on PC. I'd say they are a good instrument for those who battle unhealthy habits, but otherwise agree with @Coffee Pancake

For me personally over-analyzing my time is one of the things that triggers bad bad dips into depression. So I would rather not have a metric like this forced on me. Especially if I am trying to relax. Different people, different needs. 

[Ajay McDowwll]

As many above me have said, it's a bad idea.  My life is my own, such as it is, and I don't need to be told when I can and cannot log into a virtual world.  I'm 51 years old, and frankly, my time of taking orders (outside of those given by my employers) has passed. 

If I can't monitor the balance between SL and my RL, that's an issue I'd need to take up myself or with the aid of a qualified professional.  Linden Lab need not intervene on my behalf

[Jules Catlyn]

It is nice to see everybody's views on this. Some valid points are being made. Some are almost going on the barricades. I am inworld a lot so i see all the points made, some i agree with, others i do not.

[Dellard]

Maybe Linden Lab could limit the amount of time residents can be logged in to SL - for example 12 hours on any calendar day (SL time). I imagine most people would spend less than 12 hours logged in and those who spend more than 12 hours probably aren't doing themselves any good! 

[Kathlen Onyx]

8 minutes ago, Dellard said:

Maybe Linden Lab could limit the amount of time residents can be logged in to SL - for example 12 hours on any calendar day (SL time). I imagine most people would spend less than 12 hours logged in and those who spend more than 12 hours probably aren't doing themselves any good! 

According to whom? I'm an adult. If I want to spend 24/7 on the computer why would I want a social media gaming site to limit my use on their platform?   I play a game here in SL that you level up according to how much time you are logged in with the HUD on. I stayed log in all the time just for that reason, even when I am sleeping or doing other RL things.

If this were a platform where children under the age of 18 played then I could see some merit to it but since it is played by adults we don't need Big Brother dictating how to spend our time. 

[SynesthetiQ]

40 minutes ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

According to whom? I'm an adult. If I want to spend 24/7 on the computer why would I want a social media gaming site to limit my use on their platform?   I play a game here in SL that you level up according to how much time you are logged in with the HUD on. I stayed log in all the time just for that reason, even when I am sleeping or doing other RL things.

If this were a platform where children under the age of 18 played then I could see some merit to it but since it is played by adults we don't need Big Brother dictating how to spend our time. 

I understand that there are a few people on these forums that firmly believe history is destiny.

The logic (if it can be called that) goes that SL has "survived" in its current state for over a decade - despite all previous harbingers of doom and gloom. As a result its obviously safe to extrapolate and spin that history into a future of many more years of support for a stagnant economy, anachronistic culture, and dwindling user base. Nobody is forecast to make any real ROI, but that's ok because look how realistic my boobs are.

The truth is there are lots of genuinely new legal, societal, technological changes and pressures which are beginning to impact SL and the rest of the online world. Given current research shows that Americans spend (on average) around 30% of their time online, the idea that we as individuals and our associated behaviours won't also come under scrutiny and legislation is pretty silly.

In the beginning of course it won't be legislation which reflects and attempts to mitigate these pressures (however there are already quite well funded lobbying groups attempting to do just that).

It'll actually be commercial online businesses across social media, gaming and yes virtual worlds pushing the changes. All of whom need new investors and customers with deep pockets, and consequentially need to be seen as responsible actors and display an adherence to the same set of brand values as this target demographic.

Much talk on these forums has been around the future of SL - what the new hires mean - what the new owners are thinking when they institute changes to ToS.

If you think their strategy is to invest good money after bad in developing clever, commercially and technically savvy ways to keep SL as it is and keep the current slowly decreasing user base happy, then sadly I think there's a lot of disappointment coming your way. Nobody hired the new VP of engineering for his ability to manage a jira backlog of low priority BAU concerns and gripes.

I suspect the new owners of SL will gradually institute tighter controls over user behaviour and attitudes, not really because they care about your potential addictive tendencies or ensuring your civil liberties as a self determining adult.

It will all be done purely to ensure that SL is seen as a safe and socially palatable haven for investors to place their money and expect a good ROI in the forecast context of the next 5 to 10 years. 

So is it likely that SL will institute some sort of access control to minimise the potential for addictive behaviour?

In the short term probably not - however in the medium term maybe.

Either way, the deciding factors really won't include whether or not a few of the current residents lose out on some fishing time or feel their imagined civil liberties to be infringed.

[Kathlen Onyx]

20 minutes ago, SynesthetiQ said:

So is it likely that SL will institute some sort of access control to minimise the potential for addictive behaviour?

In the short term probably not - however in the medium term maybe.

 

Highly unlikely.

[SynesthetiQ]

1 minute ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

Highly unlikely.

Oh ok then, I'm glad that's all sorted out 😀