Lets discuss - SL last names post from Rodvik Linden in the feeds.

[161488303349]

---

JustOneMore Loon wrote:

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

• If you need to recycle names, purge the user DB of anyone who has not been logged in say for more than 3 years

---

no. No. no. Unequivical NO.  This can lead to people THINKING they are talking to their old friends but not. Old users with brands can be missrepresented as CURRENT purveyors. and it's completely unneccesary with the last name paradime,.

---

 agree. that would be so not good 

 

[161488303349]

what upset people the most is that this is not really a technical problem. nothing changed underneath. the db and servers and all that still recognise and use last names. is why we end up with Resident. bc linden decided at the time to stick something in the lastname so that things could keep working as they were already without them having to do much work at all

was a social change, to address unhappiness. unhappy people who didnt want to be restricted to a list of lastnames. so linden fixed it for them by removing the list

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

16 wrote:

what upset people the most is that this is not really a technical problem. nothing changed underneath. the db and servers and all that still recognise and use last names. is why we end up with Resident. bc linden decided at the time to stick something in the lastname so that things could keep working as they were already without them having to do much work at all

was a social change, to address unhappiness. unhappy people who didnt want to be restricted to a list of lastnames. so linden fixed it for them by removing the list

---

The last names were removed because the people were unhappy? Now the people are unhappy because there are no last names?

[DQ Darwin]

Well it has been an interesting discussion and it pretty much runs the same pattern in the Feeds, Walls, my.secondlife.com or whatever the heck it has for a title.

While I am pleased Rodvik came to us presenting the planned action, as Del said, a more formal statement as a follow up would be welcomed.

We do not yet know the full "wow" factor suggested in and around the Last Name issue, other than possible, maybe and what if titles.

The general consciences I see from comments here and on the feeds are pretty much as follows:

Last Names - Bring them back - Yes (with other suggestions also offered with respect to the various options that are possible)

Titles - No (don't you dare lol)

I do like the idea of having a General Notice sent to residents requesting their input by a vote (governed by a time frame for answering), on matters that directly impact our life on the grid. It is in fact what I believe Rodvik was doing, getting a feel from us. This to me would be a simple Yes/No process eliminating all the passions one way or the other.

I for one would feel more a part of the community having a say. Whether or not the Voted process had an impact on the question being fielded, is entirely in the hands of LL in the end regardless. I do think our say would have some bearing though.

Thanks all for your input.

Waves to Rodvik

[161488303349]

linden crazy logic at work again. solve a social problem of restricted naming choices by removing the list of restricted choices. most other companies would have solved by giving more choices but they not crazy, so  

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

16 wrote:

linden crazy logic at work again. solve a social problem of restricted naming choices by removing the list of restricted choices. most other companies would have solved by giving more choices but they not crazy, so

 

---

Good for us, imagine where we would be if they weren't crazy, 

“the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes 'Awww!'" - Jack Kerouac, On the Road

[161488303349]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

16 wrote:

linden crazy logic at work again. solve a social problem of restricted naming choices by removing the list of restricted choices. most other companies would have solved by giving more choices but they not crazy, so

 

---

Good for us, imagine where we would be if they weren't crazy, 

“the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars 

and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes 'Awww!'

" - Jack Kerouac,

On the Road

---

thats a cool saying. i will remember that one. thanks (:

mad not like king lear but more say like richard iii. the kinda madness that can inspire ppl to do deeds and stuff that they could never imagine themselfs doing before. steve jobs had that kind of madness. richard branson as well. philip linden is the same and he somewhere between these two i think. would never have been a sl without his special kind of madness. and all the maniacs who respond to the call. including most of us residents. well at least me anyways. rodvik linden is a madman in that way as well i think. cool (:

[Charolotte Caxton]

Yes, it seems that most of the cool things that have been done in this world were probably preceded by someone saying to them, you are going to do what? That's crazy! And by this world I mean life, all 17 of them.

[JustOneMore Loon]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

---

JustOneMore Loon wrote:

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

• If you need to recycle names, purge the user DB of anyone who has not been logged in say for more than 3 years

---

no. No. no. Unequivocal NO.  This can lead to people THINKING they are talking to their old friends but not. Old users with brands can be misrepresented as CURRENT purveyors. and it's completely unnecessary with the last name paradigm,.

---

The previous implementation required the "first last" name combination to be unique, which quickly leads to exhaustion of name space for popular (and common) name combinations. So unless there is a solution to this, freeing old name space may be an option. 

---

There is a limit on last names? A continuation of adding new last names as the old last names fill up is an easy enough solution.  Smith is full? Add Jones... and so on.

The lack of last names now is what's causing a namespace issue.  Before the last names were hidden, Namespace was limited only by imagination of last names.  

What we DID see is that the namespace was filling up because no one was making new last names. (The Linden who was responsible for it was laid off.)   

This, of course, leaves another great opportunity for volunteerism- Residents can come up with creative last names.  Volunteer programs are, sadly, lacking in SL. (Anyone remember mentors?)

[JustOneMore Loon]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

Going back to the original post, I am reminded that this thread, now 10 pages long, is the result of a tweet on the MSL feed by the CEO, picked up by a resident and posted on the SL GD Forum. 

---

Anyone else thinking "Deltango for CEO"?

[Qie Niangao]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

Going back to the original post, I am reminded that this thread, now 10 pages long, is the result of a tweet on the MSL feed by the CEO, picked up by a resident and posted on the SL GD Forum. Bad habits die hard at Linden Lab - especially the Marie Antoinette attitude of "Let them eat cake". One would think after all these years and so many mistakes, the company would actively seek the knowledge and experience of its userbase.

Nothing has been posted on the SL Blog for over a month. Meanwhile, valuable insights by residents are scattered across the web (SLU, NWN, private fora, business blogs, resident blogs, Flickr, inworld IMs etc.) as Marie Antoinette paces back and forth in her ivory tower waiting for the coders in the basement to "bang on things" so that she can gleefully toss them to us from her balcony. [...]

---

As little as I care about names, I care very much that the Lab has shut down nearly all lines of communication with its customers.

It would be fine with me if they decided to abandon the blog altogether and switch to SLU or somewhere for all official communications; the problem is that they're simply not communicating anywhere anymore.  A few scattered tweets and an SLU post every few months... I mean, WTF?

In the past, the Lab has gotten almost this quiet just before a major announcement.  Sometimes those quiet intervals have been extended when whatever was supposed to be announced was delayed.  Maybe that's what's been happening for the past few months, but it may instead be that this is a permanent thing, that they're weaning SL users from any expectation of normal customer communications.

It's very hard not to see this as an indication that the Lab has simply lost interest in Second Life in favor of whatever Next New Things they'll be rolling out.  I hope they have a better communication strategy planned for those new product lines, because this sure isn't working for SL.

[AliceOneders]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

If you need to recycle names, purge the user DB of anyone who has not been logged in say for more than 3 years

 

I think if Linden Labs chooses to bring back a last names list, this would be an excellent idea.  I never understood why they don't purge accounts after a certain time period.  I'd think this would help free up server space as well as names.  I'd guess SL is significantly different than it was 3 years ago, so wouldn't it actually be better for the resident to start over (esp. if mesh, etc. become the new norm) rather than go back to an account that'd in essence have to be "renewed" in almost every respect anyway?  It would also make residents more conscious of the fact that engagement inworld is LL's goal.  Of course RL can and does interfere with SL and some people just don't have time for SL when certain life events happen, but if a resident truly had significant assets stored in SL would he actually abandon them for greater than 3 years?  

And if all SL residents are made aware that this is occurring, I think that would greatly minimize the chance that someone would think an old friend had reappeared after such a long time.  And even if that was not the case, if that person was a good friend they'd probably be able to tell within a few minutes of interacting that it was not the same person.  Given how easy it is to use search to find people, it wouldn't be too difficult for a user to locate old friends if he did have to start over.  It would also encourage him to find new places and engage with other people.  I've also heard of griefers taking old avatars out of several year hibernations to engage in griefing activities.  I see few drawbacks to such a purge.  In fact, even separated from the naming issue I could see why it might be useful to do on LL's part.

[Charolotte Caxton]

While your arguments seem sound, I can think of a few instances where a three year absence might not be in the control of the avatar's operator. It would be a shame if one were detained, hospitalized, drafted, volunteering or in an internship to come back after their time served to find out that their beloved avatar was purged and being operated in name by some stranger. It would be horrible. 

[Qie Niangao]

It's the poor schmuck choosing the name who should be protected from anybody ever before having had it.

Imagine the plight of the poor newbie who accidentally choses the name of the Gingko swindler, say, or the notorious antisemitic adfarmer.

[Charolotte Caxton]

Lol, he would be like, why does everyone hate me?  

[AliceOneders]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

While your arguments seem sound, I can think of a few instances where a three year absence might not be in the control of the avatar's operator. It would be a shame if one were detained, hospitalized, drafted, volunteering or in an internship to come back after their time served to find out that their beloved avatar was purged and being operated in name by some stranger. It would be horrible. 

---

I can see your point, especially if that resident is an immersionist.  If Second Life is seen as another life, then to destroy all those lives by a cold purge could almost be considered a kind of genocide.  However, as has been noted all over these forums there are many, many accounts opened that are abandoned within even a short time frame.  That has got to put an enormous burden on LL servers over time if even a fraction of those avatars is kept in the system because the owners simply forget to cancel their accounts.   I understand that keeping all those accounts open would be ideal, but is it a feasible one?  Maybe such a purge could be considered more like a biotic crisis - three years of stagnation and a world-wide disaster comes and those lives are unfortunately taken, just like in nature in RL. 

It is so easy to get online nowadays (library computers, smart phones, internet coffee houses, etc.) that even if one is away from his main computer - troops stationed overseas in third-world countries can get onto the web to place Skype calls with their family, for instance -  a resident can log in not necessarily to go in-world, but to check out the forums or my.secondlife.com, to keep up with relationships made in-world.  There are ways to maintain an active account that don't require an in-world presence and don't require a computer with SL installed.  With the examples you gave, only someone incarcerated or in an extremely debilitated condition in the hospital would likely not have access to the internet in some form.  I'm sure there are other examples I'm omitting, but if we narrow to immersionists, then narrow further to those who would not have internet access at all within three years, I think we're talking about a very slim subgroup of inactive accounts.

Ideals are fantastic, but compromise has its place too regardless of which world we're talking about. 

Of course my argument only holds if those avatars are truly burdening the servers.  If they're not, or are reasonably burdensome, then they should remain untouched.

 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

It's the poor schmuck choosing the name who should be protected from anybody ever before having had it.

Imagine the plight of the poor newbie who accidentally choses the name of the Gingko swindler, say, or the notorious antisemitic adfarmer.

---

omg you know someone is going to get zfire in like the first day or so  LOL

 

[Clive Hendes]

It's very simple - make some new surnames and list the damn things! Alas, you all appear to have jumped to conclusions regarding a vague post. 

IMO those advocating that avatars who haven't logged in for three years should lose their accounts should themselves be banned for such a disgusting suggestion. 

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

AliceOneders wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

While your arguments seem sound, I can think of a few instances where a three year absence might not be in the control of the avatar's operator. It would be a shame if one were detained, hospitalized, drafted, volunteering or in an internship to come back after their time served to find out that their beloved avatar was purged and being operated in name by some stranger. It would be horrible. 

---

I can see your point, especially if that resident is an immersionist.  If Second Life is seen as another life, then to destroy all those lives by a cold purge could almost be considered a kind of genocide.  However, as has been noted all over these forums there are many, many accounts opened that are abandoned within even a short time frame.  That has got to put an enormous burden on LL servers over time if even a fraction of those avatars is kept in the system because the owners simply forget to cancel their accounts.   I understand that keeping all those accounts open would be ideal, but is it a feasible one?  Maybe such a purge could be considered more like a biotic crisis - three years of stagnation and a world-wide disaster comes and those lives are unfortunately taken, just like in nature in RL. 

It is so easy to get online nowadays (library computers, smart phones, internet coffee houses, etc.) that even if one is away from his main computer - troops stationed overseas in third-world countries can get onto the web to place Skype calls with their family, for instance -  a resident can log in not necessarily to go in-world, but to check out the forums or my.secondlife.com, to keep up with relationships made in-world.  There are ways to maintain an active account that don't require an in-world presence and don't require a computer with SL installed.  With the examples you gave, only someone incarcerated or in an extremely debilitated condition in the hospital would likely not have access to the internet in some form.  I'm sure there are other examples I'm omitting, but if we narrow to immersionists, then narrow further to those who would not have internet access at all within three years, I think we're talking about a very slim subgroup of inactive accounts.

Ideals are fantastic, but compromise has its place too regardless of which world we're talking about. 

Of course my argument only holds if those avatars are truly burdening the servers.  If they're not, or are reasonably burdensome, then they should remain untouched.

 

---

You do make a good point along with the caveat that it only is a matter of concern if unused accounts burden the system. I also have no idea how the technical aspect of that works.

My reply to your very well worded and thought out post would be to say, even if we narrow it down to the immersionists who can not access the internet in any way during those three years, is one avatar deletion worth it?   

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

---

You do make a good point along with the caveat that it only is a matter of concern if unused accounts burden the system. I also have no idea how the technical aspect of that works.

My reply to your very well worded and thought out post would be to say, even if we narrow it down to the immersionists who can not access the internet in any way during those three years, is one avatar deletion worth it?   

---

maybe just the bots that took up so many names that are not active anymore?

i know some had silly number names..but some took the time to make them unique and ate up user names as well..

if there was a way to get those names back..that might help..i mean the grid was full of them heheheh

 

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

---

You do make a good point along with the caveat that it only is a matter of concern if unused accounts burden the system. I also have no idea how the technical aspect of that works.

My reply to your very well worded and thought out post would be to say, even if we narrow it down to the immersionists who can not access the internet in any way during those three years, is one avatar deletion worth it?   

---

maybe just the bots that took up so many names that are not active anymore?

i know some had silly number names..but some took the time to make them unique and ate up user names as well..

if there was a way to get those names back..that might help..i mean the grid was full of them heheheh

 

---

How would we know which ones were bots and which ones might be a girl in a coma?

[AliceOneders]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

 

---

You do make a good point along with the caveat that it only is a matter of concern if unused accounts burden the system. I also have no idea how the technical aspect of that works.

My reply to your very well worded and thought out post would be to say, even if we narrow it down to the immersionists who can not access the internet in any way during those three years, is one avatar deletion worth it?   

---

How did I know you were going to ask that?  The pragmatist in me is inclined to say yes, if the resources freed would benefit the existing (and future) community enough to outweigh the the costs of the sacrifice, then it would be worth it.  But in RL I don't support capital punishment, so there's my first conflict.   And from what I've gathered, given how valuable oftentimes immersionists are to maintaining the SL community while active (as well as how interwoven their identity is to SL), they'd be the last accounts you'd want to accidentally or otherwise delete from SL because both the community and those individuals would likely be disproportionately affected.   So thinking about it more in-depth given the questions you asked I've got to say it would really depend upon the situation and what alternatives were available.  I don't have a simple answer for you, except to say I can understand why one would try to preserve all accounts despite the costs. 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

---

You do make a good point along with the caveat that it only is a matter of concern if unused accounts burden the system. I also have no idea how the technical aspect of that works.

My reply to your very well worded and thought out post would be to say, even if we narrow it down to the immersionists who can not access the internet in any way during those three years, is one avatar deletion worth it?   

---

maybe just the bots that took up so many names that are not active anymore?

i know some had silly number names..but some took the time to make them unique and ate up user names as well..

if there was a way to get those names back..that might help..i mean the grid was full of them heheheh

 

---

How would we know which ones were bots and which ones might be a girl in a coma?

---

thats why i said if there was a way to get those back..

it's a rough version of an idea..i haven't really gone that deep into thought about it..i'm just tossing out ideas like everyone else hehehe food for thought..that kina stuffs hehehehe *winks*

[Charolotte Caxton]

---

AliceOneders wrote:

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

 

---

You do make a good point along with the caveat that it only is a matter of concern if unused accounts burden the system. I also have no idea how the technical aspect of that works.

My reply to your very well worded and thought out post would be to say, even if we narrow it down to the immersionists who can not access the internet in any way during those three years, is one avatar deletion worth it?   

---

How did I know you were going to ask that?  The pragmatist in me is inclined to say yes, if the resources freed would benefit the existing (and future) community enough to outweigh the the costs of the sacrifice, then it would be worth it.  But in RL I don't support capital punishment, so there's my first conflict.   And from what I've gathered, given how valuable oftentimes immersionists are to maintaining the SL community while active (as well as how interwoven their identity is to SL), they'd be the last accounts you'd want to accidentally or otherwise delete from SL because both the community and those individuals would likely be disproportionately affected.   So thinking about it more in-depth given the questions you asked I've got to say it would really depend upon the situation and what alternatives were available.  I don't have a simple answer for you, except to say I can understand why one would try to preserve all accounts despite the costs. 

---

Thank you.

I would venture to say that perhaps if having many inactive accounts is a draw to the system then one might say that if an immersionist really cared for the community, they would be willing to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of all.

However, I would hope that in the interest of optimizing system performance and maintaining inactive accounts, perhaps after 3 years an inactive account could be archived, maybe, in some sort of off world storage? Like putting digital photos on an external hard drive.

I can see then that SL may have to start budgeting just for archived accounts storage, and that too may be ineffective. 

You are correct, there is no easy answer. The first question then should be, do inactive accounts put an unnecessary burden on the system for others?

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

---

---

Thank you.

I would venture to say that perhaps if having many inactive accounts is a draw to the system then one might say that if an immersionist really cared for the community, they would be willing to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of all.

However, I would hope that in the interest of optimizing system performance and maintaining inactive accounts, perhaps after 3 years an inactive account could be archived, maybe, in some sort of off world storage? Like putting digital photos on an external hard drive.

I can see then that SL may have to start budgeting just for archived accounts storage, and that too may be ineffective. 

You are correct, there is no easy answer. The first question then should be, do inactive accounts put an unnecessary burden on the system for others?

---

i don't honestly believe we should touch old accounts..i've seen too many people come back after years of being away..

in actuality they made that name up with the system so part of it is theirs..

myself i never really have a hard time with making a name..i always have had a knack for it it seems..

i've just been good at naming stuff or projects or when people ask for a name for their car or whatever..

i know it's not something everyone is good at or there would not be this problem..it just takes more time is all for some ..but that time is worth it ..i understand that  that should be stressed more in the making of an account..

my husband doesn't have any numbers..i thought of his sl name for him in like 30 seconds..Casshonn..it was Casshann but he messed up on the birth date and had to delete that one..but that also killed the name for use after that..

hey maybe that's something that could be looked into..deleted names?

there is a whole world of names out there to be used..

i think the real problem is that people want to use other names..where if they create them there would be more open to them than something that is more likely to be used..

i do want last names back ..i mean they only add to how cool a name can sound..maybe if they let us make up the last name as well?rather than them having to have a staff do it..that or have an event on the blog every 6 months or so that residents can go there and throw up some last names they came up with ..the ones LL likes they add to a list..then 6 months or maybe a year later do it again..make a big event out of it or just keep it low key or whatever..

as for fixing last names...maybe they can do something where they put a system in where the ones with resident in their last name can go to their dashboard and change the last name one time to whatever they want..then once that is done they have some option to adjust the first name to pull the numbers off..

something like that..i mean they have two names actually right now..one is just resident..the main thing is to not change the SL id that associates with everything the UUID..as long as that stays the same things should stay sound i would think..but then again..i'm no pro on that stuff..

i'm just throwing out ideas again..heheheh

i really do miss last names...i miss residents having them..i want user names back in caps..it's why i never chose a display name myself..i wanted to keep mah caps hehehe