SL should have object decay

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 minute ago, Rick Nightingale said:

Eminent domain... something we don't have where I live but judging from the movies, it causes nothing but trouble.

Are you in the states? Then you do have it. As long as there is a compelling PUBLIC interest, you will lose your land.

Some states have passed laws prohibiting using eminent domain in order to take land from one person in order to sell it to another just because the tax value will increase on the property.

[stlshayne]

30 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Are you in the states? Then you do have it. As long as there is a compelling PUBLIC interest, you will lose your land.

Some states have passed laws prohibiting using eminent domain in order to take land from one person in order to sell it to another just because the tax value will increase on the property.

Not just individual persons either!

See: Kelo v New London

[Cristiano Midnight]

If land has been abandoned, then I have no issue with builds disappearing from it after some time. Beyond that, for land people are paying for even if they are not signing in, ***** no. No object decay ever, SL is not a survival game even if it does sometimes feel like a blood sport. You can already derender and block if needed to control your own view.

[Paul Hexem]

9 hours ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Or they've passed away and one of their loved ones is continuing to pay the tier just so they can occasionally log in and visit just to remember them because it just may be the closest they'll ever come to spending time with them again?

 

5 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

quite a few of my SL friends are doing exactly this and have been for years. Join the group that owns the deceased's land & contribute tier.

In that case, again, you'd take advantage of the aforementioned preservation options. 

Why does almost every argument against the idea seem to boil down to "I didn't actually read it."?

 

1 hour ago, Cristiano Midnight said:

You can already derender and block if needed to control your own view.

Select viewers only. 

[Theresa Tennyson]

On 6/11/2024 at 11:18 AM, Paul Hexem said:

All the more reason to get rid of it.

It'll never be finished, the fullbright and/or glow will never be turned off, the plywood walls will never be textured, it'll never get PBR textures, the grass prims won't match the new terrain textures that are getting put in (if they even match the current at all).

Obviously something that's bringing some artistic or historical benefit to the grid can be locked in place by LL, but the vast, vast, vast majority is just junk.

The basic problem here is that you're creating a new system, complete with workarounds for problems it may end up causing, that won't necessarily address the problem you say you're trying to fix.

There's no proof that the main source of clutter is the owners of semi-abandoned lots. Junk prims are often caused by random people rezzing things on lots with bad land settings rather than things placed by the land owners themselves. Someone who lives in a skybox could log in every day and not be aware of the ground crud on their own lot.

And it's very possible for legitimate land owners to leave unsightly things, like building grids, out for months. But that doesn't mean that they're abandoned.

Finally, you have the situation of things like, oh, cruddy green-glowy stores with badly-textured, weak-LOD items rezzed in front of them. Yes, they're unsightly, but maybe they're owned by people who are at least theoretically still active in SL (on the forums, for instance) and were simply doing the best they can on that build.

Edited June 17 by Theresa Tennyson

[Rowan Amore]

6 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

Why does almost every argument against the idea seem to boil down to "I didn't actually read it."?

Because the preservation option wasn't mentioned in the OP and not everyone slogs through pages and pages of responses?

[Paul Hexem]

8 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Because the preservation option wasn't mentioned in the OP and not everyone slogs through pages and pages of responses?

From the OP: Certain objects can of course be locked and protected by admins to bypass decay.

[Paul Hexem]

18 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

The basic problem here is that you're creating a new system, complete with workarounds for problems it may end up causing, that won't necessarily address the problem you say you're trying to fix.

There's no proof that the main source of clutter is the owners of semi-abandoned lots. Junk prims are often caused by random people rezzing things on lots with bad land settings rather than things placed by the land owners themselves. Someone who lives in a skybox could log in every day and not be aware of the ground crud on their own lot.

And it's very possible for legitimate land owners to leave unsightly things, like building grids, out for months. But that doesn't mean that they're abandoned.

Finally, you have the situation of things like, oh, cruddy green-glowy stores with badly-textured, weak-LOD items rezzed in front of them. Yes, they're unsightly, but maybe they're owned by people who are at least theoretically still active in SL (on the forums, for instance) and were simply doing the best they can on that build.

For some residents, their trash isn't even just on their parcel, it's their entire attitude. But, the difference is they're active and participating on the platform. 

Edited June 17 by Paul Hexem

[Rowan Amore]

13 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

From the OP: Certain objects can of course be locked and protected by admins to bypass decay.

I took that to mean an admin/group of the region and not LL.  

Edited June 17 by Rowan Amore

[Paul Hexem]

19 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

I took that to mean an admin/group of the region and not LL.  

I can see the confusion there.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

The topic was disingenous anyway, it had nothing to do about what was proposed, which is lets return the builds and reclaim the parcels of people that don’t log in for long periods of time.

And then to suggest that anyone can do it?

The mainland would be wiped clean in days 😬

[Solar Legion]

Adding a hoop for users to jump through does not make this any less of a bad, unneeded idea.

The default right now is that a build is preserved for as long as someone is still paying for it with additional hoops to go through only if someone cannot continue to pay.

That is all that should be required for a build to remain: Someone is paying for it.

You can already potentially get rid of troublesome builds left behind by users that are still paying by sending in ARs or Support Tickets. That is all that should be in place. Sent in a Report or Ticket for the removal of an older build that does not in any way actually violate the ToS/CS and LL decides to ignore it? Well boo hoo, move on.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

I certainly hope the amount of negative feedback reflects on the acceptance "decay" would have overall, outside the Forums, should such a feature be seriously suggested (via "Feature Request" in Canny, etc.).

[Paul Hexem]

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I certainly hope the amount of negative feedback reflects on the acceptance "decay" would have overall, outside the Forums, should such a feature be seriously suggested (via "Feature Request" in Canny, etc.).

Perhaps.

Although almost every single post is arguing against stuff that isn't part of the idea at all, so it's hard to tell how much negative feedback is real and how much of it is angry at the stuff they're making up in their own heads.

[NaomiLocket]

32 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

I can see the confusion there.

Additionally I took that to mean LL which doesn't lower the confusion. "Request Admin Status" is a viewer function for the godly powers that be. It would only address "preservation options for things the Lab heritage lists". Taking it that way with that distinction severely limits the access to "preservation options". This is where being specific and careful with terms comes in handy.

Edited June 17 by NaomiLocket

[Roxy Couturier]

1 hour ago, Paul Hexem said:

Select viewers only. 

Then instead of the proposed system (which creates a thousand new problems to solve and is pretty weaponized to begin with and why it will never fly) wouldn't it be better to do a feature request for being able to derender on the SL viewer? I mean it's hella easier since that code already exists.

Added features from outside the lab is why we are able to deny (or allow) media, as an example.

[Paul Hexem]

7 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

I agree.

Demanding the right to delete other peoples builds because one doesn't LIKE them, and fraudulently claiming that builds one doesn't LIIKE are "holding back the platform" is certainly what I'd describe as a "trashy attitude".

A trashy idea isn't the same as a trashy attitude.

Of course, at this point there's only been a small selection of people with good replies to the thread. Everything else has been hyperbole, strawmen, and mischaracterization. To the point that we had to have a warning in the thread. So much so that when you filter for it, there's very little real opposition to the idea yet.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Paul Hexem said:

8 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I certainly hope the amount of negative feedback reflects on the acceptance "decay" would have overall, outside the Forums, should such a feature be seriously suggested (via "Feature Request" in Canny, etc.).

Perhaps.

Although almost every single post is arguing against stuff that isn't part of the idea at all, so it's hard to tell how much negative feedback is real and how much of it is angry at the stuff they're making up in their own heads.

I intentionally went back and looked at your OP a few pages ago and replied to it then.

In all fairness, your explanation of the intent seemed to also shift a lot throughout the thread. It does not help that the title "object decay" implies one thing, but your apparent actual suggestion is that entire parcels go "vacant" and (become empty).

At least you aren't suggesting that the affected parcels be sold or moved, correct?  Again - you may have suggested this in subsequent posts (it certainly came up in discussions by others), but it was not implied by your OP so far as I recall..without reviewing it AGAIN.

So, here we go:

On 6/11/2024 at 10:33 AM, Paul Hexem said:

One feature I really like about certain building games I think would be a wonderful addition to Second Life: Object decay.

If you've never experienced this in games, it's a feature where if the owner of a placed object (either individual or group) has not logged in for X amount of time (X being configurable by server owners) the object can be removed by anyone.

The concept "the object can be removed by anyone" is terrible on its surface.  I envision angry neighbors just waiting, chomping at the bit, for the "decay timer" to run out so they can remove "objects".

So far so bad vs. the overall discussion: You are focusing on "objects" and not "all objects" (which was the focus of much of the discussion).

So far, I disagree but it's hard to wrap my head around it because (as you said) the discussion wasn't really so much about "individual objects". We discussed a lot of things.

On 6/11/2024 at 10:33 AM, Paul Hexem said:

This allows users to remove abandoned builds that might be blocking access or views or whatever. Certain objects can of course be locked and protected by admins to bypass decay.

As Rowan pointed out a few posts above, "protected by admins to bypass decay" implies not just LL.

But again, you are using the word "decay" as if something changes with the objects themselves. I guess your choice of words was just awkward, sorry.

Note again, that your OP so far focuses on removing "some" objects from a parcel.  The phrase "remove abandoned builds" does not necessarily "mean", but does "imply" all objects on a parcel.

On 6/11/2024 at 10:33 AM, Paul Hexem said:

Naturally the dynamics of SL would require the decay timer to be much much longer than in most games, but with the new mainland covenant making it seem like they have plans for making some changes, now's the time to enact it.

I noticed upon this re-reading that you're stating "enact it", bypassing the possibility that "hey, maybe a majority of people don't want this". But, go ahead and "enact" it!

Anyway, now that I re-reviewed your OP AGAIN, I still disagree.

Because, any suggestion of a process for "exceptions", or the process to have things "locked and protected" is completely left out.  By leaving that out, it's at the whim of the random users to "remove" objects, and of LL to do nothing about complaints. 

Your initial OP has no suggestion of a possibility of honoring "reversal requests", no mention of "of course, this could be abused so a process would need to exist for objects to be replaced", etc.

As written, I do not like you original suggestion at all.

I hope that addresses your comment above (at least for my own opinion):

15 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

Although almost every single post is arguing against stuff that isn't part of the idea at all, so it's hard to tell how much negative feedback is real and how much of it is angry at the stuff they're making up in their own heads.

If indeed you wish someone to also consider certain other aspects of your idea, which you elaborated on in subsequent posts after the OP, then good luck consolidating your idea into a single post for people to review.

 

[Paul Hexem]

3 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

A trashy idea isn't the same as a trashy attitude.

Of course, at this point there's only been a small selection of people with good replies to the thread. Everything else has been hyperbole, strawmen, and mischaracterization. To the point that we had to have a warning in the thread. So much so that when you filter for it, there's very little real opposition to the idea yet.

I'm not sure why that's funny, @Solar Legion

Did you miss the warning? Should I link it for you?

[Love Zhaoying]

4 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

A trashy idea isn't the same as a trashy attitude.

Ain't that the truth!

5 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

Of course, at this point there's only been a small selection of people with good replies to the thread.

I hope my long post above focusing on the the OP is an example of a "good reply" now.  Otherwise, how are we to know which of your posts in the thread count as the actual idea?

[Paul Hexem]

  

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I intentionally went back and looked at your OP a few pages ago and replied to it then.

In all fairness, your explanation of the intent seemed to also shift a lot throughout the thread. It does not help that the title "object decay" implies one thing, but your apparent actual suggestion is that entire parcels go "vacant" and (become empty).

At least you aren't suggesting that the affected parcels be sold or moved, correct?

Correct. Other people made that up in order to argue against it.

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

The concept "the object can be removed by anyone" is terrible on its surface.  I envision angry neighbors just waiting, chomping at the bit, for the "decay timer" to run out so they can remove "objects".

That's how it's handled in most platforms- and we can already do it with object encroachment. Auto return doesn't seem like that big a deal to me, personally. Plus if someone's willing to buy a nearby parcel and monitor that one for the decade or more we're talking about, well...

5 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

As Rowan pointed out a few posts above, "protected by admins to bypass decay" implies not just LL.

But again, you are using the word "decay" as if something changes with the objects themselves. I guess your choice of words was just awkward, sorry.

I said admins because that's what most platform calls them. In our case, it would be both LL and estate owners.

Decay is simply a timer from your last login.

6 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Note again, that your OP so far focuses on removing "some" objects from a parcel.  The phrase "remove abandoned builds" does not necessarily "mean", but does "imply" all objects on a parcel.

Not everything on a parcel will have the same owner.

7 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Because, any suggestion of a process for "exceptions", or the process to have things "locked and protected" is completely left out.  By leaving that out, it's at the whim of the random users to "remove" objects, and of LL to do nothing about complaints. 

Your initial OP has no suggestion of a possibility of honoring "reversal requests", no mention of "of course, this could be abused so a process would need to exist for objects to be replaced", etc.

I was hoping to leave the process for exceptions up for discussion, yes. It was suggested later in the thread it could be as easy as a support ticket, or even the "lock" checkbox in the build itself.

Reversal requests wouldn't necessarily be needed if you can just rez the stuff right back out from your inventory. Although a better way to place coalesced objects back in world would certainly be needed.

8 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Otherwise, how are we to know which of your posts in the thread count as the actual idea?

The idea isn't immutable, that's the whole point of discussions.

9 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I hope my long post above focusing on the the OP is an example of a "good reply" now.

You're not dumb. I don't have to tell you that hyperbole, strawmen, and insults are not good replies.

[Paul Hexem]

6 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Well yes, that tends to happen when you say "Oh no! People hate my trashy idea, I shall pretend the negative replies don't exist! There, now nobody disagrees with me! I win!"

In a debate, hyperbole, strawmen, and insults count as failures. One is even against the forum guidelines. So, if we're making this a win/lose contest then yes. I win, you lose.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Paul Hexem said:

13 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

The concept "the object can be removed by anyone" is terrible on its surface.  I envision angry neighbors just waiting, chomping at the bit, for the "decay timer" to run out so they can remove "objects".

That's how it's handled in most platforms-

That doesn't make it "ok" or something "we" want in Second Life.

1 minute ago, Paul Hexem said:

and we can already do it with object encroachment.

Not the same thing at all, as in that case, the object is literally over your own parcel.  

2 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

Auto return doesn't seem like that big a deal to me, personally.

"Auto return" of someone else's objects on THEIR property? I assume you must mean "auto return" of someone else's objects on YOUR property.  Otherwise, this doesn't make sense to me, sorry.

4 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

Plus if someone's willing to buy a nearby parcel and monitor that one for the decade or more we're talking about, well...

I have no idea what you are implying, unless it is "then they deserve to be able to control returning other people's objects"?  Otherwise, nobody owes them spit just for owning property and sitting on it for a decade or more, despite being unhappy about the view.

6 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

I said admins because that's what most platform calls them. In our case, it would be both LL and estate owners.

Ok, thanks for clarifying.  Since an "estate owner" is someone who controls an entire region..then poor mainland parcel owners would not have anyone to "lock" their items except LL.  As far as I understand, there's no "estate owner" for individual parcels on Mainland.  (Unless you modify that statement.)

8 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

Decay is simply a timer from your last login.

Yes, since it does not mean "decay", I'll try to redefine the word in my head. 🙂

9 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

21 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Note again, that your OP so far focuses on removing "some" objects from a parcel.  The phrase "remove abandoned builds" does not necessarily "mean", but does "imply" all objects on a parcel.

Not everything on a parcel will have the same owner.

You did not imply in your OP removing "all objects by an owner", but instead you implied "objects" (individual objects or coalesced objects), and mentioned "builds" (usually means groups or linked objects but CAN mean "everythign on a parcel).  

Are you now saying that your idea is for someone to remove everything from a parcel "by owner" (similar to "returning objects")?  That's a twist.  That makes it more open to "spite" / abuse (return all that 1 guy's objects)then just "select the objects to return" and select "return objects".

I dislike this part of your clarified suggestion, even more than what I assumed you wanted.

12 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

I was hoping to leave the process for exceptions up for discussion, yes. It was suggested later in the thread it could be as easy as a support ticket, or even the "lock" checkbox in the build itself.

Reversal requests wouldn't necessarily be needed if you can just rez the stuff right back out from your inventory. Although a better way to place coalesced objects back in world would certainly be needed.

Granted, I assumed the objects would "disappear somewhere" (or be "derendered for everyone"), and your clarifications seem to specifically say, "return the objects":  it is not a matter of "just rez the stuff back out from your inventory".  At all. 

Imagine someone returns all your items.

"Just rez the stuff right back out from your inventory."

No, it doesn't work that way.  Good luck finding the exact X/Y/Z coordinates  to rez the objects;  plus, they will be in your inventory as coalesced objects - you won't even know what they are.

So far, this is the worst part of your idea so far. 

Imagine missing the "decay timer" (or not knowing about it), and coming back to SL and finding your inventory a jumbled mess of random objects, coalesced objects, etc.?  Nope.

Sadly, I like the "hide/derender" option much more than your "return" suggestion.

16 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

27 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Otherwise, how are we to know which of your posts in the thread count as the actual idea?

The idea isn't immutable, that's the whole point of discussions.

And here we are, discussing. Disgusting? No, discussing. Whichever.

17 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

27 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I hope my long post above focusing on the the OP is an example of a "good reply" now.

You're not dumb. I don't have to tell you that hyperbole, strawmen, and insults are not good replies.

Thank you, most people treat me like I AM dumb! Hyperbole, strawmen, and insults also bug me a lot.  And when you challenge people on "hyperbole", they may reply, you are calling them a "liar".  Fun times.

Thanks for your replies!

 

[Paul Hexem]

1 minute ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

There's no strawman here.

Except for this part, you mean?

1 minute ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

specifically to delete peoples builds that YOU don't like, because YOU made a FRAUDULENT claim that builds YOU don't like are "holding back the platform", and you have provided exactly NO valid reasons for justifying why this laughably worthless idea should be enacted.

Further, you've FRAUDULENTLY compared it to LAND OWNERS being able to return objects that encroach on THEIR land, and there is NO comparison at all.

Your whole thread is an exercise in fraudulent claims, in support of a weaponised scheme to permit legalised griefing of land owners.

Although to be fair, that also goes into hyperbole and mischaracterization, too. It's not all strawman. At least we left out insults, so you're doing better than some people, I'll give you that.

3 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

The answer is that your laughably worthless suggestion is NOT needed, NOT wanted, and NOT suitable for SL, and should NEVER be put in place, EVER.

Again I wonder why there's such a challenge to make that case without the aforementioned issues? Several people have done it. How come they were able to, but so many other posters aren't capable of it?

[Riley Doune]

6 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

There's no strawman here.

You suggested copying a laughably worthless feature from some damn awful game you've played, that's nothing like SL, specifically to delete peoples builds that YOU don't like, because YOU made a FRAUDULENT claim that builds YOU don't like are "holding back the platform", and you have provided exactly NO valid reasons for justifying why this laughably worthless idea should be enacted.

Further, you've FRAUDULENTLY compared it to LAND OWNERS being able to return objects that encroach on THEIR land, and there is NO comparison at all.

Your whole thread is an exercise in fraudulent claims, in support of a weaponised scheme to permit legalised griefing of land owners.

The answer is that your laughably worthless suggestion is NOT needed, NOT wanted, and NOT suitable for SL, and should NEVER be put in place, EVER.

 

I generally agree, but why so aggressive? Opinions, definitionally, cannot be fraudulent - excuse me - FRADULANT - they're subjective.