SL should have object decay

[Cristiano Midnight]

When I was out of SL mostly for 10 years, I still had land that I have owned since 2003 that I continued to pay for. On that land was the house of a dear friend of mine that passed away, and also a small memorial I made. Your proposal retroactively takes away the rights of landowners like myself who did not opt into having their objects removed for the sole crime of not logging in. I am sorry, but your opt out system is terrible on its face and against the spirit and quite frankly the letter of what Second Life is. Hard pass.

[Paul Hexem]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

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

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

"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.

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.

I mean, unlike those other platforms, we already have auto return that can be timer controlled. This entire thought experiment is just expanding where the timer could apply.

5 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

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".

We're talking a last login of owner, and we're talking about years, even decades. I can't imagine even the most dedicated griefers would wait next to a parcel for ten years just to see if the timer comes up.

9 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

"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.

That's an issue with coalesced objects in general that still to this day needs to be fixed.

 

10 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

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

The issue with derendering, besides it being limited only to select viewers, is that scripts and collisions continue to take place on the region, using up resources. If we're going to clean up after people, we should actually clean up- not just hide it under the rug.

[Paul Hexem]

3 minutes ago, Cristiano Midnight said:

When I was out of SL mostly for 10 years, I still had land that I have owned since 2003 that I continued to pay for. On that land was the house of a dear friend of mine that passed away, and also a small memorial I made. Your proposal retroactively takes away the rights of landowners like myself who did not opt into having their objects removed for the sole crime of not logging in. I am sorry, but your opt out system is terrible on its face and against the spirit and quite frankly the letter of what Second Life is. Hard pass.

See, that's the kind of input that's valuable. Exactly the kind of exception that should be mentioned.

Can I ask if it was mainland or a private region?

[Cristiano Midnight]

Just now, Paul Hexem said:

See, that's the kind of input that's valuable. Exactly the kind of exception that should be mentioned.

Can I ask if it was mainland or a private region?

It is mainland. Again, the failure in your logic is that an exception has to be granted. Opt out vs opt in. 

[Love Zhaoying]

5 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

I mean, unlike those other platforms, we already have auto return that can be timer controlled. This entire thought experiment is just expanding where the timer could apply.

We're talking a last login of owner, and we're talking about years, even decades. I can't imagine even the most dedicated griefers would wait next to a parcel for ten years just to see if the timer comes up.

That's an issue with coalesced objects in general that still to this day needs to be fixed.

 

The issue with derendering, besides it being limited only to select viewers, is that scripts and collisions continue to take place on the region, using up resources. If we're going to clean up after people, we should actually clean up- not just hide it under the rug.

Thanks for confirming my understandings.

Sorry, with the clarified understanding that your proposal is based on "returning objects" - I do not like it at all.

Good convo!

 

Edited June 17 by Love Zhaoying

[Paul Hexem]

1 minute ago, Cristiano Midnight said:

It is mainland. Again, the failure in your logic is that an exception has to be granted. Opt out vs opt in. 

Unfortunately, systems like these would effectively be useless if they're opt in instead of opt out.

 

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

Thanks for confirming my understandings.

Sorry, with the clarified understanding that your proposal is based on "returning objects' - I do not like it at all.

Good convo!

See how easy that was? You could give people lessons.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 hour ago, Solar Legion said:

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.

 

Why would someone AR a build that doesn’t violate the rules? Send in enough bogus ARs and the person submitting them might find themselves suspended.

[Cristiano Midnight]

Paul, I don’t know you at all and I am assuming you are making this suggestion in good faith. The pushback is because this is an idea that adds nothing to SL at the expense of the rights of users. There is zero upside except builds you don’t want to be there anymore being gone. That does not benefit SL, only you. 

[Love Zhaoying]

8 minutes ago, Cristiano Midnight said:

It is mainland. Again, the failure in your logic is that an exception has to be granted. Opt out vs opt in. 

And who in their right mind would opt in? "Sure, return all my stuff randomly as if its a sandbox. Why not?"

 

Edited June 17 by Love Zhaoying
Added missing "who"

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

5 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Thanks for confirming my understandings.

Sorry, with the clarified understanding that your proposal is based on "returning objects' - I do not like it at all.

Good convo!

See how easy that was? You could give people lessons.

I try, in cases like this giving as specific a reply as I can (like with the long replies earlier). But people get in a "TL;DR" mood or assume nothing you write is "worthy". LOL!!

 

Edited June 17 by Love Zhaoying

[Theresa Tennyson]

10 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

We're talking a last login of owner, and we're talking about years, even decades. I can't imagine even the most dedicated griefers would wait next to a parcel for ten years just to see if the timer comes up.

Could you give us a SLURL to someplace where the problem you're referring to actually exists? (Note that I didn't even use scare quotes.)

[Solar Legion]

7 minutes ago, Cristiano Midnight said:

Paul, I don’t know you at all and I am assuming you are making this suggestion in good faith. The pushback is because this is an idea that adds nothing to SL at the expense of the rights of users. There is zero upside except builds you don’t want to be there anymore being gone. That does not benefit SL, only you. 

I'll add to this: There are some 'ideas' so laughably bad that there will be those whose response will simply be to 'push back', correcting the idea and making it incredibly clear what is thought of it while also making it incredibly clear that the person making the response sees nothing whatsoever to 'debate' or 'discuss'.

Doubling/tripling down on said 'idea' or being dismissive of those who have responded in such a manner does not help whatsoever.

ETA: There are also some 'ideas' that are quite simply so bad that no amount of clarification, alteration or such can make them presentable/palatable.

Edited June 17 by Solar Legion

[Cristiano Midnight]

4 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

Unfortunately, systems like these would effectively be useless if they're opt in instead of opt out.

And that is why it does not work. It changes a fundamental behavior of SL. One person’s junk build or eyesore is another person’s creation that may matter to them. It will not work in SL even with the exemptions you carved out. 

[Love Zhaoying]

Having reviewed and digested Paul's actual suggestions, and had a Q&A session with him, my conclusion is (not being dismissive intentionally):

The original suggestion, as intended with clarification, turns most of Second Life into a "sandbox", where anyone can return your items if you don't login. (Granted, for years or decades.)

I don't pay for a "Sandbox", sorry!

Although, I've seen articles where people describe Second Life as a "Sandbox".

 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 minute ago, Cristiano Midnight said:

Paul, I don’t know you at all and I am assuming you are making this suggestion in good faith. The pushback is because this is an idea that adds nothing to SL at the expense of the rights of users. There is zero upside except builds you don’t want to be there anymore being gone. That does not benefit SL, only you. 

You are much to generous, I think he is a troll and a trouble maker.

*waiting for someone to reply “takes one to know one”

😁

[Paul Hexem]

1 minute ago, Cristiano Midnight said:

Paul, I don’t know you at all and I am assuming you are making this suggestion in good faith.

I made the discussion here, instead of as a feature request, because I actually agree that it wouldn't work in SL without being heavily modified. Theoretically the discussion would have been on the modifications.

3 minutes ago, Cristiano Midnight said:

The pushback is because this is an idea that adds nothing to SL at the expense of the rights of users.

I completely expected people to not want it as a feature (again, which is why it's not a feature request). What's surprising is just how angry and irrational people got. There's always some, but this one really got people unhinged.

5 minutes ago, Cristiano Midnight said:

There is zero upside except builds you don’t want to be there anymore being gone. That does not benefit SL, only you. 

On this I actually disagree. Scripts, collisions, rezzed objects and their texture, it does objectively add to server and client loads. Cleaning up stuff that isn't used anymore would be a benefit to the platform. Otherwise we wouldn't need autoreturn at all, I suspect.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

I completely expected people to not want it as a feature (again, which is why it's not a feature request). What's surprising is just how angry and irrational people got.

Example "Logical" steps that could lead to apparently irrational anger:

1. I think a lot of people "don't trust LL to do the right thing".

2. If LL were to implement features similar to the suggestions, then "my" stuff could be returned!!! This makes it a "bad idea".

3. The anger could come from merely suggesting LL do something that is a "bad idea", there is a danger of LL actually doing it.  

4. Adding, that because people don't trust LL to "do things the right way", a lot of people would assume "LL will screw this up" and "PEOPLE WILL RETURN MY STUFF1!!!!1!"

 

[NaomiLocket]

Part of the problem with returning objects in this setting is SL's parcel division design and distributed lease. For one to remove a third party's build is to change the view of other third parties. To change the view of other third parties without the consent of those parties infringes on their percieved value of their area. I've had discussion on similar topic about some of the "historic" areas of SL and I was on the side of not being overly sentimental about everything. Because progress and the freedom to implement lessons learned over time to develop areas. This was also said to the person on the premise of being able to copy and preserve live history the same way the Lab has done with various other projects, realms, old premiums etc.

I am however not fond of laying waste to things without purpose. Even with micro justifications around resource use. And being familiar with other games implementation of the feature having a tendency to tie territory control to objects and their decay. I'd have to side with Cristiano's outlook and the friend I debated the subject with. I too currently house a memorial to a friend lost in my immediate circle. It's not strictly the reason for objecting, but I can understand the reasoning given and I agree with it. Also with context I agree with the friend I debated with in light of this thread and the breadth of its discussion.

However I have other friends that have raised valid points that there are seemingly abandoned tracts of land that stands as ghost town. And the idea of sections of land be handed over and managed by the community to beautify in one form or another has contextual appeal. And while I would be open minded about the prospect of "fixing" abandoned stagnation, a lack of development, or acquisition for projects beneficial to a wider audience, I could only be open minded about it with strict context and thorough assurance only land the Lab could deem to be "unrecoverable by the owner" to be affected.

In the grand scheme of things as the idea is presented here I'd have to agree with the no or hard pass. At least until its intended target and use is narrowed strictly down to a specific problem and domain without risk to the wider SL.

[Cristiano Midnight]

2 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

I made the discussion here, instead of as a feature request, because I actually agree that it wouldn't work in SL without being heavily modified. Theoretically the discussion would have been on the modifications.

I completely expected people to not want it as a feature (again, which is why it's not a feature request). What's surprising is just how angry and irrational people got. There's always some, but this one really got people unhinged.

On this I actually disagree. Scripts, collisions, rezzed objects and their texture, it does objectively add to server and client loads. Cleaning up stuff that isn't used anymore would be a benefit to the platform. Otherwise we wouldn't need autoreturn at all, I suspect.

Autoreturn is about owners controlling their own land. Your proposal is other people controlling it. You will get a visceral reaction from people when you suggest taking agency from users. 

[Solar Legion]

1 minute ago, Cristiano Midnight said:

Autoreturn is about owners controlling their own land. Your proposal is other people controlling it. You will get a visceral reaction from people when you suggest taking agency from users. 

The 'proposal' furthermore ignores that the parcels are being paid for. Be they by the original owner, some trust outside of Second Life or whatever else.

It does not matter if the parcel owner returns at any point or not - the parcel is being paid for. If said parcel's contents do not violate the ToS/CS in some way, there is no reason to remove them. None.

[Paul Hexem]

6 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Could you give us a SLURL to someplace where the problem you're referring to actually exists? (Note that I didn't even use scare quotes.)

No, I can't. I don't have a specific situation to apply this to- which is something I also said earlier. Again why it's a discussion, not a feature request.

4 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

ETA: There are also some 'ideas' that are quite simply so bad that no amount of clarification, alteration or such can make them presentable/palatable.

Absolutely correct. Of course, someone trying to convey that may fail when it gets lost behind a message so bad that a moderator has to step in.

10 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

You are much to generous, I think he is a troll and a trouble maker.

*waiting for someone to reply “takes one to know one”

😁

Good luck there.

[Love Zhaoying]

21 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

Scripts, collisions, rezzed objects and their texture, it does objectively add to server and client loads.

Derendering in the client doesn't help on the "client load" side? I keep hearing "nobody uses the official client" (which doesn't have "derender"), and to "just derender". lol

 

[Paul Hexem]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Derendering in the client doesn't help on the "client load" side? I keep hearing "nobody uses the official client" (which doesn't have "derender"), and to "just derender". lol

I said server, too.

For example, if I have a bunch of breedables wandering around my parcel and you derender them, the physical collisions will still continue to bring the region's FPS down.

Edited June 17 by Paul Hexem

[Love Zhaoying]

'Tis merely a "Modest Proposal"!

This is a reference to Jonathan Swift's literal argument that the poor should sell their children for food to solve their poverty. (From the Google AI summary, in case anyone argues "it's not about that".)

Kind of like killing the goose that lays golden eggs, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, etc.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Derendering in the client doesn't help on the "client load" side? I keep hearing "nobody uses the official client" (which doesn't have "derender"), and to "just derender". lol

I said server, too.

Sure BUT my question was only addressing the "client" side. Nice try, though..?

From this answer, I assume you agree that "derending" would solve your stated "client" issue.