CasperTech Acquisition Discussion

[Prokofy Neva]

3 minutes ago, Casper Warden said:

I probably just saw your name pop up in a group chat or something, it wasn't deliberated in any way. I just needed an external avatar name to test the resolver functionality, and I forgot to remove it. 
 

I think I was quite clear on this: "I neglected to remove it before release". Your (avatar) name was present, accidentally, in one version of the Transporter, and it was removed the instant you told me.

I did explain this to you at the time, seven years ago, we had a conversation, I explained why it happened and I apologised, as I have again now. I presume you are only bringing this up again as some kind of leverage?

I'd also like to point out that the transporter makes no use of the term "griefer" - that word came from you - it's just an access control list for access to the teleporter itself.

I'm bringing this up again to point to the problem of a merchant putting in "test bans" that stick.

Again, you aren't explaining how, if it were merely in a test edition, it showed up in TPs in stores from merchants who already bought and deployed the system.

I'm mystified what sort of "leverage" I could gain from raising this legitimate issue. Will the Lindens port merchant bans? Will they institute their own bans using this system?

Typically, a customer put in a ban list in a store has committed some offense, perhaps copy-botting, perhaps harassment of the clerks, perhaps particle spamming. Normally bans are used on griefers, and most merchants don't ban bloggers. If they did, they'd get no peace having to keep track of everybody on Twitter who said they didn't like their squishy leg garters. That's why the term "griefer" is used about ban lists, which are usually put in for actual disruption on land.

 

[Sammy Huntsman]

1 minute ago, Prokofy Neva said:

I'm bringing this up again to point to the problem of a merchant putting in "test bans" that stick.

Again, you aren't explaining how, if it were merely in a test edition, it showed up in TPs in stores from merchants who already bought and deployed the system.

I'm mystified what sort of "leverage" I could gain from raising this legitimate issue. Will the Lindens port merchant bans? Will they institute their own bans using this system?

Typically, a customer put in a ban list in a store has committed some offense, perhaps copy-botting, perhaps harassment of the clerks, perhaps particle spamming. Normally bans are used on griefers, and most merchants don't ban bloggers. If they did, they'd get no peace having to keep track of everybody on Twitter who said they didn't like their squishy leg garters. That's why the term "griefer" is used about ban lists, which are usually put in for actual disruption on land.

 

Let me pose this question. So you think that creators should just take all the grief of someone crapping on their work?

[Casper Warden]

1 minute ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Again, you aren't explaining how, if it were merely in a test edition, it showed up in TPs in stores from merchants who already bought and deployed the system.

I have answered this, and I'll refrain from doing so yet again. If you wish to discuss this or anything else, I am happy to receive you in IM.

[Prokofy Neva]

8 minutes ago, Casper Warden said:

I probably just saw your name pop up in a group chat or something, it wasn't deliberated in any way. I just needed an external avatar name to test the resolver functionality, and I forgot to remove it. 
 

I think I was quite clear on this: "I neglected to remove it before release". Your (avatar) name was present, accidentally, in one version of the Transporter, and it was removed the instant you told me.

I did explain this to you at the time, seven years ago. We had a conversation about it, I explained why it happened and I apologised, as I have again now. I presume you are only bringing this up again as some kind of leverage?

I'd also like to point out that the transporter makes no use of the term "griefer" - that word came from you - it's just an access control list for access to the teleporter itself.

You might be interested to know, if you don't already, that the makers of teleport systems and security panels often put *their own names* into the ban list when testing them. And leave them there for good reason -- then the customer knows that the merchant himself won't invade their skybox. This is a widespread practice among a variety of merchants. They don't have this felt need for an "external avatar," maybe because they use their own permission-free alts for testing.

[Prokofy Neva]

3 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

Let me pose this question. So you think that creators should just take all the grief of someone crapping on their work?

The question is rather: should you as an individual be the one to decide this for an entire system? You're quite sure your criteria should apply everywhere? That's how to think about it. Because bans are shared, for any reason or no reason. And now the Lindens have their hands on these levers. 

I doubt that people even just in this discussion could come to an agreement about what "crapping on their work" actually means. To me, if you point out in a factual manner that a prefab house has convex issues and the house can't be entered, that's not "crapping on their work," it's pointing out an actual flaw, and one they have refused to remedy when their customer wrote to them or their CSR. That's why the comments section was useful. It sometimes took a public comment to get a house creator to fix this issue. It seems perfectly reasonable to demand this and to be public with the criticism when a private IM is ignored. The product simply doesn't work.

And yet likely there will be those who say that if you are ignored you should wait patiently until answered some day and not go in your house.

[Sammy Huntsman]

1 minute ago, Prokofy Neva said:

The question is rather: should you as an individual be the one to decide this for an entire system? You're quite sure your criteria should apply everywhere? That's how to think about it. Because bans are shared, for any reason or no reason. And now the Lindens have their hands on these levers. 

I doubt that people even just in this discussion could come to an agreement about what "crapping on their work" actually means. To me, if you point out in a factual manner that a prefab house has convex issues and the house can't be entered, that's not "crapping on their work," it's pointing out an actual flaw, and one they have refused to remedy when their customer wrote to them or their CSR. That's why the comments section was useful. It sometimes took a public comment to get a house creator to fix this issue. It seems perfectly reasonable to demand this and to be public with the criticism when a private IM is ignored. The product simply doesn't work.

And yet likely there will be those who say that if you are ignored you should wait patiently until answered some day and not go in your house.

Okay, so you think a vendor system should not have the rights to ban someone entirely from the system?  And yeah that is totally fine if you see an issue and you bring it up. That is totally fine. But I mean how many people are actually doing that? Compared to say telling them that their product is crap when they didn't demo it. Or another good comparison is if I were to go to Casper Warden and tell him his vending system is absolute crap. Logically speaking why should he allow me to use it? I mean if I don't like it and made it public, should he not be able to ban me? 

[Sammy Huntsman]

Also, @Casper WardenI don't think your vendor system is crap. I was just using it as an example. 

[Prokofy Neva]

8 minutes ago, Casper Warden said:

I have answered this, and I'll refrain from doing so yet again. If you wish to discuss this or anything else, I am happy to receive you in IM.

I'm not fully understanding why, if you sold this system to the Lindens, you are answering my comments or anyone else's comments here, as it is my understanding that you were not "acqui-hired" in this deal. And no, I see no point in continuing this matter of public interest in a private conversation. 

That's great that you deleted my name from the test ban list in a TP system already sold and numbering in the thousands of sales. Thanks!

But...Did you re-issue the TP product so that people who bought it would then automatically  install it, thereby automatically removing my name? Likely not.

You wouldn't even have to explain why you are reissuing a new version to fix something, that's done all the time. Did you put out a system wide message asking people to remove my name from the list. Hardly, that would only draw more attention to it. So yes, new buyers didn't inadvertently ban me, but old buyers continued to do so for years.

It's not about me. It's about the capacity of these systems to do this, try to understand that I'm only a case illustrating a larger point about the Metaverse. 

[Sammy Huntsman]

Just now, Prokofy Neva said:

I'm not fully understanding why, if you sold this system to the Lindens, you are answering my comments or anyone else's comments here, as it is my understanding that you were not "acqui-hired" in this deal. And no, I see no point in continuing this matter of public interest in a private conversation. 

That's great that you deleted my name from the test ban list in a TP system already sold and numbering in the thousands of sales. Thanks!

But...Did you re-issue the TP product so that people who bought it would then automatically  install it, thereby automatically removing my name? Likely not.

You wouldn't even have to explain why you are reissuing a new version to fix something, that's done all the time. Did you put out a system wide message asking people to remove my name from the list. Hardly, that would only draw more attention to it. So yes, new buyers didn't inadvertently ban me, but old buyers continued to do so for years.

It's not about me. It's about the capacity of these systems to do this, try to understand that I'm only a case illustrating a larger point about the Metaverse. 

He still works for the SL Side of Caspertech. He even said that. Its just that LL owns the SL side of Caspertech. 

[Rowan Amore]

Taking bets on who gets put back on the list.

[SeattleChris]

1 hour ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Casper, it's good you've stated this for the record, which you hadn't done before.

The mind boggles at the idea that you could "randomly" pick up my name and from hearsay, decide it is suitable as a "test griefer name to ban". On what basis? 

And what you're saying makes no sense. If I encountered this ban repeatedly over time, and even recently, that means that it sold with my name in it, and wasn't just a test. How could it be "just a test" when it is in random stores and venues? And I would come across it and then query the store or location and ask them what's up, and they would be mystified and usually remove it. If it were only a "test," how could I have experienced it, and over some time?  That means my name was put in products that were sold on the market, not tested.

@SeattleChris, there is a concept in civil society that the right to swing your arm ends at someone else's nose. It would be frivolous to think that today, in our play world, someone suffers because they can't buy a pre-fab or a dress for their avatar. But this is, after all, a prototype as Philip and other founders always intended. So as I said, the implications are terrible -- that on a whim, someone will be unable to buy groceries. All sales of items real and virtual could be attached to a networked Casper vendor some day in the brilliant future.

And even in our virtuality, it's corrosive to think of how this escalates. If Casper can put my name 'as a test" that in fact replicates in the market, what if he or now LL decides that all purchases are to be banned as well? That's what monopolists can achieve. 

It's absurd to think that RL stores can "ban" people in this manner. Perhaps in some small town? But in a liberal, democratic metropolis of any size, it would be impractical to try to ban a person from purchases in stores. I can't think of a case in New York City where someone is "banned from a store". Maybe at Pop's Cigar Store in Penn Yan, a child who shop-lifted candy is sternly warned away for ever more. But how is this enforced in RL? On a scale? It's not, of course.

Imagine if Amazon could ban people from purchases if they didn't like someone's criticism either on the site reviews or in the newspaper. The idea that a "bad review" on Amazon enables a merchant to block someone from buying a book or an case of soda!

And again, if someone is an actual griefer with a rap sheet, they are land-banned or banned from SL, not banned from purchases.

A world in which merchants use a monopolist system to ban people from purchases on a whim isn't a free world with a free economy.

I'm sorry, but I think you are comparing apples to oranges. The rights of a free society are predicated on one's rights to exist. One does not have a "right" to exist in Second Life. That is based on an understanding between LL and any particular user. Abuse LL staff and you might find your account deleted. If you think being abusive to real life staff means your entire person can be deleted, then we can carry this conversation forward.

Also, please note I am SEATTLE Chris. I know many Amazon employees. If you think they don't ban users - effectively preventing them from making ANY purchase whatsoever - you are mistaken.

If Amazon bans me from purchasing groceries through Whole Foods, I can go to Safeway, QFC, Fred Meyer, Grocery Outlet, Big Lots, CostCo, Sam's Club, Albertson's.... etc.

All these companies also have the right to refuse service on certain circumstances. Believe me, "grief" your local Safeway and find out if you still have a "right" to shop there. You don't. The idea this means you can no longer purchase groceries is simply not true. You just can't purchase groceries "there".

Edited October 1, 2022 by SeattleChris

[Prokofy Neva]

5 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

Okay, so you think a vendor system should not have the rights to ban someone entirely from the system?  And yeah that is totally fine if you see an issue and you bring it up. That is totally fine. But I mean how many people are actually doing that? Compared to say telling them that their product is crap when they didn't demo it. Or another good comparison is if I were to go to Casper Warden and tell him his vending system is absolute crap. Logically speaking why should he allow me to use it? I mean if I don't like it and made it public, should he not be able to ban me? 

No, I don't think a top class of merchants should have the right to collectively ban shared lists of consumers. That's what happens; it's not about one merchant. People constantly discuss and gossip in SL and share bans.

No, I don't think it's a good practice even for one merchant to ban people from purchasing their products because their feelings are hurt. Sometimes this is based on a misunderstanding. It's on a perception of behaviour that may or may not be grounded in actuality.

Here's another example. A top creator in all the events banned me from her vendor, mysteriously. At first I thought it was because after buying copious amounts of her products for years, on one complicated product she issued with a co-creator, it didn't work as claimed. I wrote a NC merely asking if it could be fixed, there were known issues. I explained how I had tested it repeatedly. There wasn't any criticism or "crapping on" -- there was just "this doesn't work, can it be fixed"? She referred me to her scripter. The conversation seemed polite and normal.

Next thing I know, I'm banned from her vendor a little while later.

Come to find out that it's not about that defective product, but something more intricate, having to do with a tree that encroached on her friend's large and popular venue at a remote corner of it, that he repeatedly returned. Since I couldn't see how it was possibly encroaching I was mystified, especially as it wasn't visibly an annoyance and surrounded by abandoned land on some sides. But it was more about how this person resented that I had obtained some abandoned land that perhaps he had his eye on? Who knows? He banned me from his land as well.

"Aren't you happy to have a neighbour with nice trees and not something obnoxious?" I asked, mystified. "Feel free to stay on your land," he retorted. Eventually, he took off his ban - nothing of mine could possibly be waving into the remote corner of his land. Meanwhile, the vendor ban of his friend remained. Such is Second Life. I fully understand the merchants of the forums -- but fortunately not all merchants -- believe they should ban people they don't like for any reason and set their own comfort levels. 

I don't think it's so productive to keep debating this here. 

[Casper Warden]

12 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

if I were to go to Casper Warden and tell him his vending system is absolute crap

*sulks*

[Sammy Huntsman]

1 minute ago, Casper Warden said:

*sulks*

I am sorry, I didn't mean it. I was using it as an example. I love your system ♥

[Casper Warden]

1 minute ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I am sorry, I didn't mean it. I was using it as an example. I love your system ♥

I know, I'm only being silly ❤️- and thanks!

Edited October 1, 2022 by Casper Warden

[Prokofy Neva]

8 minutes ago, SeattleChris said:

I'm sorry, but I think you are comparing apples to oranges. The rights of a free society are predicated on one's rights to exist. One does not have a "right" to exist in Second Life. That is based on an understanding between LL and any particular user. Abuse LL staff and you might find your account deleted. If you think being abusive to real life staff means your entire person can be deleted, then we can carry this conversation forward.

Also, please note I am SEATTLE Chris. I know many Amazon employees. If you think they don't ban users - effectively preventing them from making ANY purchase whatsoever - you are mistaken.

Also, if Amazon bans me from purchasing groceries through Whole Foods, I can go to Safeway, QFC, Fred Meyer, Grocery Outlet, Big Lots, CostCo, Sam's Club, Albertson's.... etc.

All these companies also have the right to refuse service on certain circumstances. Believe me, "grief" you local Safeway and find out if you still have a "right" to shop there. You don't.

Well again, see Marsh v. Alabama to think about these principles. Private companies can do what they want. But when they grow to the size of entire cities and take on the function of a town hall, people have different expectations -- and that's why Congress or the EU then come to regulate the big platforms like Google or Facebook. People easily criticize Facebook's overwhelming power and bad judgement -- precisely because this is now so big and ubiquitous and many people treat Facebook as a utility to maintain business and family contacts.

So it's about principles, not what some small private company like LL does -- when we are the test case for the Metaverse. We should be proud of this role, even if only history might record us and we can't get noticed much now -- although WSJ and CNN have just this past week. These issues are big and not decided on a forums of a private company. 

You can't go to Safeway and Costco when Whole Foods is all there is, when it is the monopolist. That's the problem. Again, I'm not aware that my Gristedes has blocked my or my neighbours entry to their store, where they have a monopolist role on our plaza in our complex, population 4000, located a mile from the nearest competitor because it's built out over the river and you need to cross the highway on a foot bridge and walk a mile to "civilization" -- because we posted criticism of their poorly maintained freezer.

 

Edited October 1, 2022 by Prokofy Neva

[Jules Catlyn]

8 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

I fully understand the merchants of the forums -- but fortunately not all merchants -- believe they should ban people they don't like for any reason and set their own comfort levels. 

I am glad i can decide who can buy and use my products. In a free economy that is my right as a creator. It is also my right as a person to make my SL as comfortable as i want it to be. If that means that i want to ban people just because i do not agree with them or think they are annoying, that is my right. No long chapters of responses will ever change my mind on this. You keep avoiding the fact that every person is personally accountable for their actions. You sometimes mention it briefly but then bounce back to what a merchant should do in your view. 

I consider anyone who makes my SL uncomfortable a nuisance and i will deal with them as i see fit within the confines of ToS and the tools provided to me.

Edited October 1, 2022 by Jules Catlyn

[SeattleChris]

35 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Well again, see Marsh v. Alabama to think about these principles. Private companies can do what they want. But when they grow to the size of entire cities and take on the function of a town hall, people have different expectations -- and that's why Congress or the EU then come to regulate the big platforms like Google or Facebook. People easily criticize Facebook's overwhelming power and bad judgement -- precisely because this is now so big and ubiquitous and many people treat Facebook as a utility to maintain business and family contacts.

So it's about principles, not what some small private company like LL does -- when we are the test case for the Metaverse. We should be proud of this role, even if only history might record us and we can't get noticed much now -- although WSJ and CNN have just this past week. These issues are big and not decided on a forums of a private company. 

You can't go to Safeway and Costco when Whole Foods is all there is, when it is the monopolist. That's the problem. Again, I'm not aware that my Gristedes has blocked my or my neighbours entry to their store, where they have a monopolist role on our plaza in our complex, population 4000, located a mile from the nearest competitor because it's built out over the river and you need to cross the highway on a foot bridge and walk a mile to "civilization" -- because we posted criticism of their poorly maintained freezer

Linden Labs only controls Linden Labs. They don't control Meta, HyperGrid, OSGrid, Roblox, or anything else. As for the ubiquity of companies like Meta/Facebook... well, I don't even have a Facebook account and I get along just fine. Not using them does not hamper your actual life. I didn't like the way ArenaNet treated its Guild Wars 2 customers, or how GW2 allowed so much abuse. I complained. They demurred. I deleted my account. No infringement on my freedoms whatsoever. You always have the choice to use them or not, and that has been true since the first EULA was written in the bowels of ... heck.

And quite frankly, I didn't like the culture of the CasperTech support, so I stopped using them. Casper isn't squeezing me off the grid, and nor do I foresee anything of the kind happening.

Finally, Casper isn't a god. He's another LL user. You can file an abuse complaint against him just like you could any other user if you feel his behavior towards you was abusive or defamatory. As CasperTech also exists outside of Second Life, you could also seek remedy through the legal system.

I honestly don't get the point of continuing to beat this dead horse. From my perspective, it's coming across much more like you are venting your spleen against Casper Warden in public. I'm not going to see this your way because I think you are objectively false in what you are saying, and that your RL examples won't ever be applicable to a virtual environment from which you could simply walk way if it made decisions you felt would ruin your continued participation.

If you don't like CasperTech or Linden Labs, don't use them. You wont even have to get out of your chair to find a competitor, much less cross a freeway. Or, alternately, if you think you have just cause bring action against them.

I don't recall being presented a TOS in the birth canal with which I had to agree before proceeding forward, nor being presented with a whole host of alternative mothers. As such, I will always see using a virtual world as a *choice*, making it substantively different than just existing.

Edited October 1, 2022 by SeattleChris
clarity

[Love Zhaoying]

11 minutes ago, Casper Warden said:

*sulks*

[Prokofy Neva]

8 minutes ago, Jules Catlyn said:

I am glad i can decide who can buy and use my products. In a free economy that is my right as a creator. It is also my right as a person to make my SL as comfortable as i want it to be. If that means that i want to ban people just because i do not agree with them or think they are annoying, that is my right. No long chapters of responses will ever change my mind on this. You keep avoiding the fact that every person is personally accountable for their actions. You sometimes mention it briefly but then bounce back to what a merchant should do in your view. 

I consider anyone who makes my SL uncomfortable a nuisance and i will deal with them as i see fit within the confines of ToS and the tools provided to me.

@Jules Catlyn The reason I keep mentioning merchant accountability is because no merchant here is mentioning it. PS I'm a merchant, too. I provide refunds on an open source rental script. Most merchants using Casper vendors don't provide refunds although I believe it's an option on that system. Will LL provide this for rental systems?

The tool was in the hands of a private company, although a near monopolist. But now it's in the hands of the platform provider themselves. Are you quite sure you will be happy with every decision they make on behalf of the merchant class? Will 10% be too high a fee? 15% on every purchase? What if prim boxes can no longer be set for direct purchases, even?

@SeattleChris You may want to try going to the second floor of the next store you come across.

I'll note again in closing that what LL needs to take over is networked roadside billboard advertising, and end the blight and exploitation of ad farms that devalue land, and provide networked advertising at welcome areas and infohubs. Taking over the chief vending system will merely lead to more costs to the merchant and inflation of prices.

 

[Jules Catlyn]

1 minute ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Are you quite sure you will be happy with every decision they make on behalf of the merchant class? Will 10% be too high a fee? 15% on every purchase? What if prim boxes can no longer be set for direct purchases, even?

Just like in RL; of course i will not always be happy with decisions that any regulator takes but as a business person i will deal with it and adapt. The fees on MP are often mentioned as an example. I see those a the cost of using a service that benefits my business. Just like i pay my landlord for land and a certain blogger system to manage my bloggers. Doing business costs money. Fees, subscriptions,taxes are a fact of live. Laws and regulations are another one. Some i like, some i don't but i will have to deal with them and i will. 

[Love Zhaoying]

Idea: Premium Plus should include LL's CasperVend at "no extra fee"!

[SeattleChris]

43 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

@SeattleChris You may want to try going to the second floor of the next store you come across.

 

 

I'm not sure what this even means. RL or SL? In RL, I've never had a problem finding the elevator, escalator, or stairs. In SL, I can just fly. The last SL store I visited was The Looking Glass. I think they have four or five floors. Made it to all of them without any issues whatsoever.

Edited October 1, 2022 by SeattleChris

[Drake1 Nightfire]

On 10/1/2022 at 12:11 PM, Prokofy Neva said:

In RL, if someone is banned from a store, it's banned just from that store. It's not banned system-wide, in a monopolist system. That's the danger of bans like this. They're also banned for specific offenses like shop-lifting, not a blog post or review on a web site

In the immortal words of the orange one... WRONG!!! 

I worked for a huge department store chain back in the day in security. We had a list of people and copies of their picture who were banned from every store for one reason or another. Most were for shoplifting, several were for causing a disturbance, one fine young woman was on the list for stripping and streaking through the store. 

So yes, you can bann people from an entire chain. 

On 10/1/2022 at 1:09 PM, Casper Warden said:

I did explain this to you at the time, seven years ago. We had a conversation about it, I explained why it happened and I apologised, as I have again now. I presume you are only bringing this up again as some kind of leverage?

 

ETA @Casper WardenAccording to my email you did send me something on 9-14, but i didnt get it inworld nor is it listed on the caspervend redelivery system. 

The object 'CasperTech Announcement' in Second Life has offered you inventory.

Log in to accept or decline this inventory.

 

 = CasperTech Announcement is owned by Casper Warden

 = http://slurl.com/secondlife/Izanagi/218/48/139

Edited October 3, 2022 by Drake1 Nightfire

[Sammy Huntsman]

13 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

ETA @Casper WardenAccording to my email you did send me something on 9-14, but i didnt get it inworld nor is it listed on the caspervend redelivery system. 

 Dear valued customer,

    You are receiving this communication because you are a registered user of CasperTech services related to 
    Second Life (CasperVend, CasperLet, or CasperSafe). We don’t communicate like this very often, but we have 
    some really exciting news to share!

    CasperTech has provided various business-related services within Second Life for 13 years. Over that time, 
    we have been proud to provide continuous service for tens of thousands of Second Life businesses, and have
    remained steadfast to our commitment to the merchants who depend on us.

    Today we announce the next step in our journey. We are delighted to share that the Second Life portion of
    CasperTech is being acquired by Linden Research, Inc.

    Not only will this move ensure that all of our services will continue to operate without interruption into the
    foreseeable future, but it also opens up brand new opportunities to vastly improve the experience for our
    users. 

    You can expect to see the same great services that you know and love continue on, but with closer integration
    into the Second Life ecosystem – and as such, an even more reliable and convenient experience.

    As part of this process, the entity that controls your data (the “data controller”) will change from CasperTech Ltd,
    a United Kingdom based company, to Linden Research, Inc, a company based in the United States.  This means
    that the data we hold about you, and on your behalf, will transfer ownership and jurisdiction.

    You have the right to object to your data being transferred to Linden Research, Inc, by requesting the deletion
    of your data prior to this transfer instead, if you wish. You can view information on the data that we hold on
    your behalf, and request deletion, using our GDPR tool: https://gdpr.casperdns.com. If you have difficulty with
    this tool for any reason, please email gdpr-legal@caspertech.co.uk with your request. In order to take effect
    before the transfer, deletion requests must be activated by 5pm UK time on Monday, 19th of September.
    Otherwise your data will be transferred to Linden Research, Inc, although you can still request that your data
    is deleted by them afterwards.

    Information about how Linden Research, Inc protects personal data can be found at
    
    https://www.lindenlab.com/privacy.

    We hope that you are as excited about this change as we are, and we thank you for your continued support
    as we all step boldly into the future together!

    Sincerely Yours,

    Casper Warden and the CasperTech Team

This is what it said @Drake1 Nightfire