Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Casiopa Xue

Why are Time Stamps Forced on Us to name a few.

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3240 days.

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

Recommended Posts

You know, I come online and game to get away from schedules, pressure, clocks.

Recently I upgraded to the Phoenix Firestorm viewer. Its a change...many good new features. But after struggling or over three hours to find a way to turn off the stupid time stamps in my local and IM conversations, I joined a group on Firestorm to ask how to do it.

Imagine my surprise when I find out the LL, in its infinite wisdom, has shoved one more thing down my throat. Seems there is NO way to turn that off. How stupid.

I know what time it is, if I want to know when someone sent a message great. But frankly, having the time given to me every single time i type a line of text. is ANNOYING. It ruins the feel of rp. It is the RL world shoved down my throat when I simply want time away from it.

PLEASE quit making these sorts of things default. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE quit making them mandatory.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I use Firestorm I don't see timestamps in chat but, I have all the chat options set to mimic Viewer 1 behavior. You'll want to go into the various preferences and play around with the settings choosing the Viewer 1 style defaults for chat. This will also let you get rid of some of the v2 display  oddities like the microscopic icons next to people's names and every message in local appearing as a separate window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a great many people like to have timestamps on conversations, so having it be a default or not is hit and miss depending on who you talk to....

... but blamming LL for any feature you find in a TPV is just plain ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Void Singer wrote:

a great many people like to have timestamps on conversations, so having it be a default or not is hit and miss depending on who you talk to....

... but blamming LL for any feature you find in a TPV is just plain ridiculous.

Especially a TPV put together by a team whose track record has historically and quite publically demonstrated to be quite poor at best, and subversively malicious at worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the sins of one are not the sins of all. of the current developers of THAT TPV, none have a poor track record personally or profesionally within viewer development that I am aware of.

of the members that were formerly part of a differnt team with whose same members, only a small few had blemishes on their personal records, and only 2 had any kind of blemish on the record as a developer... of which 1 was malicious and the cause of the collapse of that team (and the malicious intent was not aimed at users but rather a third party, although it leveraged users)... of those, none are active in the current team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Void Singer wrote:

the sins of one are not the sins of all. of the current developers of THAT TPV, none have a poor track record personally or profesionally within viewer development that I am aware of.

At no point have they conclusively provided evidence that they weren't knowingly in on it themselves, and at no point have they conclusively provided evidence that the developer they scapegoated was actually at fault and isn't still contributing code behind closed doors today.  The Emerald/Phoenix/Firestorm/Whatever-it's-called-this-week project just lacks any kind of meaningful transparency, which is a bad thing when it comes to government, pharmeceuticals and software, for pretty much the same reasons all around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you prescribe to the guilty until proven innocent school of thought. That's ok though, because so did LL in demanding that anyone with even a remote possibility of knowing about or any blemishes on their personal record being denied access.

the current system has each real life identifiable person on that team responsible for any code they submit, and only those people able to submit, so it's unlikely that any of them would either try to pull a similar or worse stunt, and doubly unlikely that they would submit code from someone else without reviewing it personally..... or else face real life criminal charges.

as for meaningful transparency? both the person who committed any code changes and the actual source code are available for review... I'm not sure how much more transparent you can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Void Singer wrote:

I see you prescribe to the guilty until proven innocent school of thought.

No, innocent until proven guilty.  Now that the proof is out there, it's up to them to clear their own names; something they are either unable or unwilling to do.  I see you subscribe (not prescribe, that's not the right word) to the "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on you" school of thought.  


Void Singer wrote:

That's ok though, because so did LL in demanding that anyone with even a remote possibility of knowing about or any blemishes on their personal record being denied access.

That's a reasonable thing to do, it's called vetting your contributors.  Linus won't let anyone who has worked with the code base of any proprietary operating system work on the Linux kernel code because there's no way to verify they're not just lifting code.


Void Singer wrote:

as for meaningful transparency? both the person who committed any code changes and the actual source code are available for review... I'm not sure how much more transparent you can get.

As was previously discovered, the binaries that were being contributed didn't match the source.  But go ahead, defend the shell game, keep digging your hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no I meant prescribe, the "to" was the error =)

and if the "proof" is out there then there would be no clearing of names.... they would just be guilty. no such "proof" exists.

vetting is a poor analogy for what was done... it would be comparable to to denying access to work on the linnux kernal to anyone who knew beforehand how to write code... but it's LL's platform, so their rules, no reason to put a fine point on it.

and I'll assume you mean the same source that the change was (rather quickly I might add) discovered in? nope sorry, even if the binaries didn't match the source that's transparent clue numero uno, because the source is there forthe express purpose to compare.

honestly I think you're tilting at windmills with this.

 

ETA:
this conversation is being discontinued, due to apparent deletion of posts, by whom I cannot say for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3240 days.

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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...