the Viewer wars

[Void Singer]

any time you qualify a target (such as "zealots") you narrow the focus to the qualifier (in this case "phoenix")... The problem with that is "phoenix" isn't the problem; not even indirectly. But by adding it as a qualifier you've generalized that phoenix is part of the problem, rather than a few users that are tag along elitists (and those exist everwhere). OP made that generalization, I contest it.

as a suggestion, you might be better served by telling any sort of software zealot that doesn't understand your choice with one simple principle that drives everyone's choices: "it does what I require it to do". no one sane can argue that point, and it's a great launching point to differences in usage and needs, and which product serves which needs best.

as for any "lukewarm reception" received... you seem surprised that viewer devs aren't fawning all over the idea, but I think that you neglect the facts that A) it's a commercially driven project, B) fully supporting it as an included feature means either 1) running another (commercial) product line, or 2) drinvg commerce to a limited (singular at the moment) business, which is a bit anathema for an opensource project team.... nevermind lack of user base or approval. by default, any TPV code is open source, and so available for inclusion in any other TPV. Whether OP offered up the back end code that supports it at the time, I don't know, but not doing so I think would have led to a very chilly reception for the previously stated reasons.

My thoughts on land valuation are driven by general behavior of users (in any industry), people spend what they can afford to, and when something comes along that improves that, the majority take that as a bonus and stick with paying just as much and enjoy the newfound value for their dollar. some will downgrade, but others will move up seeing an increased value to a product they didn't see as worth the cost before, and the increased exposure is instant marketing gold, because it gives people a taste of more.

on banning practices. there's not much to say. No matter how crazy, ridiculous, or inane any one person's reasons seem to me, I still have to recognize that it's their land, that they pay for right to do as they please (within the general guideline we all legally agree to). That's not the same as approving of them, and I can call them morons all day long. But nowhere in there am I entitled to impose my opinion on their practices, nor are they obligated to change anything based on my say so. validity within the guidelines, and acceptability in social context are not the same thing

ETA:
if you are going to do inline responses it's helpful to either edit the blocks, or at least use different colors on the text, makes it much easy to see whose saying what

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.

[Genesis Montagne]

---

Marigold Devin wrote:

---

Genesis Montagne wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

---

Genesis Montagne wrote:

2. Listing on the TPV Directory is not a requirement. If I wanted to download LL source and create my own viewer for my use or my friends use, that is completely fine to do. Not being listed on this directory is not an acceptable reason for banning. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Really it's completely fine to ban with or without a reason.  One persons acceptable is another persons not acceptable.

 

---

 

---

The fact that we have the ability to ban without reason does not mean that it is acceptable to do so. By that logic the fact that it is possible for one to grief, steal, harm or otherwise disrupt others is equally as acceptable to do at will. Just because something isn't mentioned in a TOS does not mean that the practice is ethically acceptable. Those who would look to a TOS as a holy grail instead of realizing that it is merely a guideline put in place to promote ethical treatment of eachother in this virtual world are missing the point. Not every scenario is or could be outlined in it and there will always be individuals out there who will read between the lines and find joy in "technically doing no wrong."  

We are raised from children to recognize and choose between right and wrong, and whether we choose to denounce such behavior is a personal choice. I always remain hopeful that people would keep an open mind, or at least investigate prior to making blanket judgements but do realize that many do not. I still feel comfortable with my statement and respect and appreciate your response. Gray areas exist (thankfully) in a free thinking society so there will never be complete agreement on any topic.

 

---

It's not acceptable that the man in front of me on the bus picks his nose either, but neither is it against RL TOS. The man may well have been brought up to know picking his nose in a public place is not acceptable, but he has the right to do it if he wants, so he does it, perhaps even knowing it is turning the stomach of those sitting behind him. 

But that's real life, and although Second Life is "ruled" by real life values - moral or otherwise - I would personally totalyly agree with Qwaliphi's statement "...

  One persons acceptable is another persons not acceptable." 

Anyone can ban whoever they want from their land. That is their right and choice.  It is our right and choice whether to be butthurt by such action.

---

No one is claiming or has claimed this action was against the TOS. I do not know how or why the discussion of whether a TOS violation has occured or not is being mentioned. There are many unethical, unfair, discriminatory and short sighted actions which take place in SL and RL every day that are not technically against any written rule, regulation or law. There are certain standards or "Golden Rules" which we as a society attempt to live by that would hopefully speak to ones individual sense of right/wrong/injustice thus encouraging us to stand against. This is what I did, in the end, my statement is my opinion, one I continue to stand by and one that some seem to agree with. Again, no claim has ever been made as to the legality of such actions only the ethics of them.

I am surprised that a statement condeming the banning of a completely TOS sanctioned use of a viewer would create such a strong defense of what many have agreed is a short sighted and ultimately silly response by the land owner. Please do not mistake a defense of my position as an indication of an emotional or "butthurt" response to the action. I am neither offended or impacted by any disagreement to my beliefs nor am I personally emotionally impacted by the banning. In the end I am quite content with an agree to disagree resolution.

Thank you for your opinion.

 

[Genesis Montagne]

Thank you, I do not believe you and I are far off on the matter of banning without reason. I would like to point out that the developer of the viewer has certified compliance with the LL viewer policy. If LL truly believed it was non compliment it would be banned from use on the grid something that LL could easily do and has done in the past with malicious viewers detected on the grid. This viewers application was rejected for listing on the directory only and does not appear to be in violation of any terms LL lists in own policy. The reason for rejection is not one of the imposed requirements and is questionable on the part of LL to say the least. The developer has posted source code for download and review on the viewer download page. 

I agree that some land owners simply do not know and may be banning based on the 3rd Party Viewer Directory. There is probably little that can be done here as ultimately it comes down to fear of the unknown. I had not considered the reality that many land owners are not techies, do not experiment or keep abreast of new technologies/new viewers or advancements. In that regard they could simply be doing their best to protect residents/business owners by taking a overly heightened alert stance. As an estate manager if I came across an unknown viewer I would do some research prior to resorting to the ban hammer. I do realize that there will always be those who shoot first and ask questions later...or perhaps never question at all.

I still do not believe that ignorance is a justification for any action. We all should make the effort to make informed decisions and think for ourselves. A lemming mentality is never one I would for which I would advocate. 

Thank you for pointing out something a "nerd" like me can easily forget.

[leliel Mirihi]

---

Void Singer wrote:

My thoughts on land valuation are driven by general behavior of users (in any industry), people spend what they can afford to, and when something comes along that improves that, the majority take that as a bonus and stick with paying just as much and enjoy the newfound value for their dollar. some will downgrade, but others will move up seeing an increased value to a product they didn't see as worth the cost before, and the increased exposure is instant marketing gold, because it gives people a taste of more.

---

That's only true with pay as you go pricing structures, with segmented pricing structures it's often the opposite. The best example is probably cable tv. People are forced to buy large channel packages at a hefty premium just to get the few channels they actually want. The cable providers have steadfastly refused to offer a la carte subscriptions because the know the majority of people would only get the few channels they want causing the company's revenue to drop like a rock.

The same could very well be true in sl, I've seen plenty of parcels where the owner only used a portion of the land, the rest was purchased solely for the extra prims or to fill out tier.

[Genesis Montagne]

Correct, the original poster made that generalization, I did not. I did however state that I had experienced this personally as well. For some unknown reason it has been Phoenix users who I have seen this with not users of viewers such as Imprudence, Kokua, Cool VL, Kirstens, Dolphin, etc. Why? I do not know or claim to know. Perhaps that is one of the downside to establishing a loyal fan base. You see much of the same thing with Mac vs Windows vs Linux enthusiasts. To a degree it is harmless to mildly annoying when caught in the middle of it.

I thank you for your suggestion on how to deal with these zealots. I have it down to a science these days and as an educator I tend to use it as a teaching moment. 

I was not surprised at all by the reception he received, in fact I rather expected it. Nor do I neglect the fact that this is a commercially driven venture. As an American I am very supportive of commerce in general. LL is supportive of these ventures as well provided they can profit from them also. In fact, many of us are here in SL with hopes of making money while we play. I am vehemently opposed to the belief that all should be available for free. That being said, the roundtable discussion was not centered around commercial/opensource ideology, all at the table agreed this was a fabulous option for roleplay communities or private regions and a potential money maker for the developer. You've made some points here that weren't part of my previous message so I'm unsure of the reasoning behind their mention here but to discuss the opensource nature of many TPV's. There have been several viewers developed with commercial ties in the past and it is completely acceptable for commercial entities to develop and distribute commercial TPV's as the LL license allows for that. There is no reason for a chilly reception by the user base any more than there was reason for it when the Emerald team released multiple attachment points and breast physics which other viewers did not support. It comes down to choice, if you want see those particular items, download and use the appropriate viewer, if not don't.

I do not see the harm in allowing this viewer to exist on the TPV directory with a focus on use in standalone communities of Sims owned by the developer or any other region wanting access. There is little difference to this than privately owned communities requiring group membership to access the land. Or roleplay communities that require the use of DCS/CCS scripting in order to participate in the activities. I hope he resubmits and is successful moving forward it communities such as these would be visually stunning to see.

On land, I don't see anything in your statement I disagree with. User behavior is hard to pinpoint. Some will see a huge bonus in utilizing the additional prims for the creation of a truly immersive landscape and leaving the "real land" for wandering/homes/accessible content. 

Banning practices are as they are, no claim was made that the owner was in violation of the TOS. I simply stated that they reacted in a manner that I found unacceptable. We cannot control this...I spoke more to this issue in my above posts.

Lastly, the inline response....I responded to the post at 3:30AM during a relatively sleepless night. Perhaps my vision was off but I had italicized your comments as well as noting them in quotes and used a darker font for my comments. It looked readable and I was able to see the separations clearly but I realize not all users monitors may differentiate between these differences. I chose to forego the process this time, I hope it helps. 

Thank you for your comments!