Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cinnamon Lohner

Third Party Viewer Policy Changes Comments

Recommended Posts


Luvis DeCuir wrote:

Hey Cinnamon, I am with you all the way, and yet another voice in opposition to these rediculous changes.  I have had a post I left on the Jira removed twice in the past 24 hours, along with all the comments left in support in what I had to say, so I am posting here,  just to feel like there is actually freedom of speech and what I have to say is valuable.  Here is that post:

 

They were removed because they didn't belong on a Jira... They belong here on a forum...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Lilmix, thanks so much for you reply.  Its good to get some sort of feedback as to why it was removed.  I wonder if you could expand just a little, and tell me what made my comment so different from all the others that were not removed.  I know this reveals my ignorance, cause basically this is the first time I have been moved to leave posts anywhere, but I still dont really know what the difference was.  What makes something belong on a forum and not a Jira, and vice versa?? And which carries the most weight C/- being heard and listened to??  And what would I have to change to make it acceptable on a Jira??  I know, so many questions :) If its too many I would understand if you did not reply, but if you or anyone else feels like responding, I would really appreciate it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe (I was not the one to remove it so I can't be certain) The reasons may have been that, though you raise some valid points, You also expressed your personal feelings on the matter in a strong way that may be taken offensively by some.


The way it was read(how I read it anyway) did not seem to be about the case that the Jira was aimed at so much as maybe aimed at the people that suggested a 'fix'. Remembering that the request of the support case was to "Restrict LSL's avatar online status checking to respect avatar's privacy setting".

There was a few... Ummm... Name calling as well as another suggestion worthy of it's own jira if you really meant it and wanted to open it  (having the 'hide' option removed all together). But no points as to why or how the original goal should or shouldn't be met.(I doubt many people saw "right to lie that some of you want to call privacy" as a 'valid' point) ;-)

I do think that you use for the function was more than valid(keep an eye on your alts and their friends) but maybe without so much of the personal thoughts.

Basicaly I think that the Jira is more a place for a 'technical' expression, and the Forums could be more your personal view on the matter
As I said. I wasn't the one to remove it and I was not in their head when they did remove it, but I can promise that you are not the only person to have a post removed from that Jira in the last few days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened to "Your World? Your Way?" or something like that? This sharing experiences is ridiculous. We all do our own thing there. I want to see MY world MY way, not your way. 

"You must not provide any feature that alters the shared experience of the virtual world in any way not provided by or accessible to users of the latest released Linden Lab viewer."

It seems it's just the creators this is really upsetting and impacting. Maybe they'll all leave (me too) and go someplace else, then there won't be any "content" for people to share. That's my feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... tell me what made my comment so different from all the others that were not removed.  

I'd guess, more than anything else, bad timing.

As Lilmix described, the jira is intended for technical information about bugs, what triggers them, and how they might be fixed. It's supposed to be for engineers, really, where users get to play unpaid QA engineers. Usually, however, the Lindens moderate the jira with a pretty free rein, as you can see from many of the other comments on this particular jira.

The thing is, however, your comment was posted only a bit after Oz's comment asking us to restrict future comments to providing specific valid "use cases" for the function they intend to break. Your comment was doing something else, conspicuously after Oz's request, so it wasn't giving subsequent commenters much of an example to follow,  Or at least that's how I think I'd see it, if I were in Oz's shoes.

(FWIW, I'm inclined to trust Oz's motives, to use the jira comments to build a briefing that will get some senior manager to see the light.  There must be some clueless somebody in the management chain who still doesn't grasp the problem with breaking tons of legitimate content, and until s/he does, the time and resources needed for a proper fix won't be approved.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to ONLINE STATUS, LL has been offered various options but a common answer that can be seen in Jira's is similar to what I also suggested that LL could implement.  There was some comment made that it would create more load to the servers but it's hard to fathom how a single field check versus 3 (what they want to do) would add additional load... but LL uses the "new math" & wrote the software so who knows.... ;)

 

I suggested in Jira:SVC-4823

Why not simply correct the ONLINE response so that it honours the users choice of "show online status (true/false)" setting.   So if a user has elected not to show their online status, OFFLINE is returned, if they elect to show their online status then return the Actual Status.  Often the KISS principle being applied is the wisest, simplest & most efficient solution.

BENEFITS:

  • It would not break existing content.
  • Does not require the Script Owner / Script Creator validation check.
  • It would not be in violation of Privacy, as a user independently selects whether or not they wish their online status available.   (almost all forums software, social sites systems, group-ware system use exactly this process and is a globally accepted practise)
  • Would reduce the Tylenol Consumption required by LL Staff to deal with the fallout & resulting breakages/issues/complaints.

CAVEAT ! - The only caveat would be vendors / updater's which check a users status prior to delivering an item.  These system owners would need to inform the end user that "if" they have their Online Status Display set not show, they would have to manually get updates or whatever arrangement is devised.  This is "inconvenient" but not an outright breakage.

Seriously, KISS the issue and get back to Keeping It Simple S*.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Suki Hirano wrote:

The new policy is the epitome of stupidity. No other way to put it.

Showing online status is a "violation of privacy"? Is this like Nazi Germany or something?

 godwin.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Cummere Mayo wrote:

1) for the people worried that the adboards will be broken by some of these changes: Owners and creators of a script designed to show online function will still be able to have their status seen by the object.  So store owners can still have  a status indicator for customers. 


What about FULL STAFF boards? You know, ones that have the online status of all owners and employees of a business? I've seen boards with as much as 6 or more online statuses. They cannot be owned and created by 6 people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Linda Brynner wrote:

Very wise.

The differences of experiences at the moment are way too big due to too many different features per 3rd party viewers compared to LL's program. It destroys homogeneity and the differences are so big that it can come to very serious misunderstandings between residents like the inability to share a windlight setting upto the question to ask someone to rezz a standard cube to demonstrate something where the latter rezzes a huge prim because he had it set as standard in his phoenix viewer and then blaming me to mess up his build, while he did it purely himself and i had no knowledge what viewer he was using. Meanwhile totally bullying me. A kind of low life person in rl no doubt, but...

All the different viewers have become a serious mess when it comes to a joined shared experience.

Wise !!

I totally disagree. Firstly, everyone I know that is a content creator knows their viewers. As to "homogeneity" (reminds me of vanilla, meh) SL is "Your world," ... not "everyone's world." For several months I struggled with using LL viewer, and it was a nightmare. But I said, "no, this is the future."  I was right! Anyways... to build, LL official viewer interface takes many additional steps to create the same item. There does not appear to be a "copy" parameters, which means, we have to "write" down all the numbers of our build if you're copying something. If I'm wrong, tell me how to do that in Linden's viewer. To make clothing, the option is two fold. You have to  make the item, then fish the template out of the inventory to "edit" it, and it's not even an "edit" but new. This is two examples. The camera in LL viewer is strangely angled. I have gone into debug to try to change this, but it drops too low and I'm seeing too much of my legs and the floor, rather than higher up to see a full view of my area. 

I get very frustrated when  people tell me all these things can be adjusted. I've read website after website to make these changes and nothing has worked correctly.

Next, LL viewer crashes, a lot with "no warning," no "flicker or anything. Just POOF! The "recent" file does not clear on log out, making it harder to organize files as I build. 

The LL viewer does not fully rez around me. Thus others are "grey" and so are objects. How am I having a shared experience now? I see grey.

When I am on LL viewer and my partner is on too, we share Skype video of each others screens. "WE DO NOT SEE THE SAME THING."

If there are problems with 3rd party viewers causing problems due to bad development, that could be addressed. There could have been other ways to get around problems.

I really and truly, honest to GOD don't know why Linden continues to cow-tow to the people who do not create "THEIR WORLD." If the creators who want these TPV leave, then those who are left can enjoy their shared experience of "nothing." 

Maybe it's the crowd people hang out with. My peeps know what the h*** they're doing. No one is confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


SLAddict Allen wrote:


Cummere Mayo wrote:

1) for the people worried that the adboards will be broken by some of these changes: Owners and creators of a script designed to show online function will still be able to have their status seen by the object.  So store owners can still have  a status indicator for customers. 


What about FULL STAFF boards? You know, ones that have the online status of all owners and employees of a business? I've seen boards with as much as 6 or more online statuses. They cannot be owned and created by 6 people.

Apparently, LL said in their meeting that a script could be written that would allow that person to "agree"  to have their status displayed. Thus, the board owner/club would give you a script that you could drop into the board, or something like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of all this is mute...Linden Labs owns Second Life..As such they can do as they please. Having listen to the meeting, what they said is true...Linden Labs already had the right to do this anyway.

That being said, they also admitted that online status can be seen a dozen other ways...IE Groups, which is part of the V3 viewer setting BTW.Or simply (most common) IM the person.

Finally, I play another game with an economy and a land-deed system..The game(not sure if allowed to put it here) has the inials E and U. They a few years back replaced their system-Engine and more or less nearly lost their gamers to it...They offically are still in some trouble...They finally listened to their gamers...and appear they will recover...They have one offical viewers(bad to very bad) at best...they have lost many gamers(normal players) to the requirements of a fast and high memory computer. So before we get crazy and go nuts calling Linden bad names; worrying about TPV possible bannings, online status that isnt really an issue anyway...it could be worse...much worse

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to http://lecs.opensource.secondlife.com/tpvd/meeting/2012-02-24.mp3 (Second Life issues about third party viewers)

Linden Labs has a point, the viewer experience, how people perceive their world, needs to be consistent between viewers. I appreciate that, I applaud that. I also appreciate and understand they have limited resources and limited time, and sometimes in their judgement they simply have to say 'no' to something. Ok, I can go along with that.

I very much hope Linden Labs gets THIS point: the community has asked for certain things for YEARS no response or negative response. Region/ Parcel wind-light, for example. Breast & buttocks physics, for example. Extensions on the attachment points, for example. Third Party Viewers provided these features without the 'assistance or consent' of Linden Labs. AFTER third party viewers made this the norm, THEN Linden Labs implemented those features. The perception that Linden Labs has to overcome is the perception, "Thank you for doing our job of listening to 'The Market' and supplying what people wanted. NOW STOP DOING OUR JOB!"

We, "The Market" did not feel Linden Labs was listening or responsive to what we felt was important. The Third Party Viewers supplied what Linden Labs lacked, and we are left feeling a very serious breach of trust in the ability Linden Labs has to listen to us, "The Market." Your V2 interface sucked and was unstable. V3 is 'marginally better on the interface', but it's still unstable and for many unusable, and that alone creates a HORRIFIC user experience. Now you have the nerve to tell Third Party Viewers to stop doing such a superior job at serving your market? So... does your "Shared User Experience" mean crashing and sucking as hard as the current release viewer?

I know, Linden Labs doesn't see it that way. That's really the heart of the problem as the reason for the 'drama' and lack of trust. Linden Labs... you want us, "The Market" to not be pissed off over your TPV rules changes? We will need to see some action on things like "Avatar 2" cleaning up the suckage of your current avatar mesh (refer to

for details of how badly the SL avatar sucks). Convince us we have reason to trust you now on serving us, "The Market" now after having broken that trust time after time after time after time after time after time. And let's get a fix on your current release viewer so it doesn't crash to desktop on a flea-fart, or totally lock up to a black screen with one frame per minute flashing so you can see how badly screwed you are before going black again.

What you desire is logical and reasonable. The context of these rule changes within this complete lack of trust between us, "The Market" and you, "Linden Labs" is the source of the drama and outrage over these rule changes. Your aspirations and intentions are wonderful, Linden Labs. But when it comes to implementation, you have a long history of SUCK. That's going to take some work to overcome. Don't tell us, "Well, everything is different now." Show us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thinking over the whole mess... I'm glad to know Oz has a grasp of the mistrust and anger over 'Old Linden Labs'. He is asking us to give them another chance, and he wants to show the process and the people now in place will make things for the better. As a consumer of both TPV's and the Linden Viewer, and from what I heard of the entire recording... ok, let's go with it.

NOT having the LL release crap out while I'm standing there doing nothing would greatly improve my user experience. So would being able to join a party in progress without having the viewer go nutz with the black screen/ one frame per minute choking. If I could chat in a group without it being broken due to lag, that would also greatly improve my attitude towards Linden Lab.

I'm going to keep my options open. I'd really like for Linden Lab to show me. I'm not clear on what other way there is to go about it. At least for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Faye Feldragonne wrote:

SLAddict Allen wrote:

Cummere Mayo wrote:

1) for the people worried that the adboards will be broken by some of these changes: Owners and creators of a script designed to show online function will still be able to have their status seen by the object.  So store owners can still have  a status indicator for customers. 


What about FULL STAFF boards? You know, ones that have the online status of all owners and employees of a business? I've seen boards with as much as 6 or more online statuses. They cannot be owned and created by 6 people.

Apparently, LL said in their meeting that a script could be written that would allow that person to "agree"  to have their status displayed. Thus, the board owner/club would give you a script that you could drop into the board, or something like that. 

If there's anything I've learned in my Second Life experience, it's not to take at face value anything a Linden says about technical matters involving the in-world experience.  They mean well, but most have absolutely no grasp of the details about how things really work in-world.

The scheme to which you refer was to allow scripts to get the online status only of the script creator and of the owner of the object containing the script. In a narrow subset of applications, this would allow a replacement for some of the objects that will irreparably break with the change.  For example, somebody owning a club with employee online indicators could get each of their employees to copy text into scripts they create themselves, pass those scripts to the club owner, who then puts the scripts into the indicators.

Even that case is problematic.  Not only is it a logistical nightmare (all the existing indicators break; must coordinate script generation and transfer from all employees -- possibly including instruction in how to even create a script and set permissions), but it entails a nasty permissions conundrum:  No responsible venue owner is going to put a staff-supplied script into their object without first checking that the script is what it's supposed to be -- which means that it must be supplied with Mod+Copy permission (or full perm).  So they're being put into the position of telling their employees to give them a script with the employee identified as creator that the club owner can modify to do anything they want.  At the very least, by owning such a script, that employer will be able to determine that employee's online status forever.  Also, if LL ever adds more "script creator enabled" functions, there would be nothing to stop the employer from adding those to the employee-supplied script, too.

And that's the easy case.  Consider the common business model of online-indicating adboards for rent.  The approach of handing renter-crafted scripts to the owner for installation obviously won't scale to this application, so the only option would be for the adboard renters to own their adboard.  Those would need to stay rezzed in place on the parcel, despite being owned by a mere adboard renter.  That's similar to a shared group mall, except adboard renters can't possibly afford to join a land management group for each site where they've rented adboards.  Hence, the proposed change kills that whole business model.

--||-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, breaking everything for current business owners and developers on the second life grid. I really wish LL would -think- about what they are doing before just blurting stuff out their going to change without getting the community's input first? Their world really wouldn't exist without the wonderful creations and ideas from the users of this world and to not even ask our opinion on things first is a bit ridiculous. Anyone with an actual brain can see this is going to cause quite a distortion in how secondlife is going to run and possibly kill off what we have today cause they refuse to fix and update their back in the stone age viewer while crippling all the users who have poured their heart and soul to creating viewers that helped fit the needs of the user. I personally cannot run their official viewer, my graphic's card is just so new it crashes on LL's viewers but not on TPV's. So does it mean that I am not allowed to use SL cause I have to conform to a viewer that is unusable? I don't really think that's very fair at all, especially all the money I've put into this game such as owning a private estate and buying L$ all these years. The reason I've invested so much money is cause I've had TPV's that customized my experience in SL to be a good one and I honestly want it to continue to be a good one, but now that we are going through such irrational decisions from the LL, I'm not sure what to do and this makes me very uneasy. :I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realise Oz said that there's nothing that TPVs have done that's against 2.K other than illegal attachment points (which no one uses any more) and parcel windlight, which gets a free pass?   That is, TPVs can carry on pretty much as before, but can't introduce new stuff that's visible to other users which doesn't look right in the official viewer, too.   

What graphics card do you have that can't run on the official viewer but can on your TPV (and which TPV is it?).  Sounds to me as if your TPV is running a more up-to-date version of Runitae Linden's various graphics fixes than have yet found their way into the official viewer.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Suki Hirano wrote:

Showing online status is a "violation of privacy"? Is this like Nazi Germany or something? Who actually get offended if someone can see if they're online? Did people at LL forget that we can check their online status by simply IMing them or checking their status in group profile?

Showing online status is indeed a violation of privacy, and I applaud Linden Lab for recognizing this as an issue. However, I (along with everyone else) condemn them for their poor decision and planning on how to go about implementing this.

LL should have waited until they had a better technical solution that would not break so much important content in the world. There are an assortment of issues there: allowing people to toggle their general on/offline status, allowing people to give revokable see-my-status permission to objects owned by others, and all the infrastructure changes (permission system, LSL, presence server, sims) to support that. (That would be a noticeable amount of work.)

Instead, they rolled out what we in the business refer to as a "hack", and not in the very complimentary sense. Their change breaks a zillion critical things in SL. Their workaround (script owner-based permission) is generally unworkable, and even opens up more security holes! And it does not give privacy control to the resident: permission can never be revoked.

LL thought they had reviewed the existing use cases for presence: they told us this in the meeting, a condescending tone intending to shut up complaints. Now they have egg on their face, because 10 seconds later people were trying to explain the most obvious and common use cases to them. It was an illustration of how unimaginably out of touch LL is with what everyone does in Second Life. Truly amazing.

Furthermore, they need a more comprehensive solution to the problem. As you have noted, presence can be determined by IMing someone. Oz Linden acknowledged this line of thinking in the meeting, and gave a stern warning that nobody must attempt to determine "true" presence information through any means at all. Not just llGetAgentStatus, but IMing, or any of a dozen other known (or to-be-hacked up) ways of determining it. Those alternate techniques (including IM) need to be closed as well.  For example, when you IM someone who has not granted you permission to see their online status, it should tell you they are offline, even if they are online.

You could view LL's actions here as a first step in the right direction. To me, it looks more like a public relations stunt gone wrong. Someone in management decided that online status was a privacy issue, and that responsible companies (they mentioned Facebook as an example!) allow users this control. So some kind of edict "to do something about it" came from on high (Rodvik?), and this was the best they could do in the given timeframe. Break the world, give the users an illusion that they were "doing something about it", not actually improve privacy much, and report back to upper management that they succeeded. Why will upper management buy this story? Because they are phenomenally ignorant about Second Life.


Suki Hirano wrote:

Showing what viewer we use is a "violation of privacy"?

It should be an opt-in feature. If you want to broadcast your Viewer version to other residents, you should have to set a checkbox in Preferences. However, that's not what Linden Lab wants. They want to prevent people from seeing the information under any circumstances. This part of their policy is not about "privacy", and their tactics here are quite insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Showing online status is indeed a violation of privacy

No, it's really not. When Redzone was leaking RL IP addresses associated with SL agents, that was (at least arguably) a privacy violation.  Showing online status, and doing so despite having a UI element purporting to disable it, is misleading for those who don't know better, and a significant inconvenience for some who do.  If they can close all the ways that happens, it might be a good thing, but the only "privacy" that would protect is role-played.

Protecting pretend privacy indeed might be a good business decision for LL.  It may make more people use the service. It's just not anything like the sort of thing that got Google a 20-year FTC babysitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Qie Niangao wrote:


Showing online status is indeed a violation of privacy

No, it's really not. When Redzone was leaking RL IP addresses associated with SL agents,
that
was (at least arguably) a privacy violation.  Showing online status, and doing so despite having a UI element purporting to disable it, is misleading for those who don't know better, and a significant inconvenience for some who do.  If they can close all the ways that happens, it might be a good thing, but the only "privacy" that would protect is role-played.

Protecting pretend privacy indeed might be a good business decision for LL.  It may make more people use the service. It's just not anything like the sort of thing that got Google a 20-year FTC babysitter.

Totally agree on this point and I disagree with the statement from Feldspar. 

Being able to know if an Avatar is or is not ONLINE is NOT a privacy issue. 

"PRIVACY" is technically the ability protect your personal content that is not normally public knowledge information.  Examples of this would be protection against being able to ask for and receive an Avatar's source IP address (like what RedZone completely violated), an Avatar's account email address, RL name and address etc.

The fact that I am SL ONLINE or not is NOT private information.  Your RL identity is not compromised or exposed because I can find out that you are online.  The state of your Avatar is not a peice of private information.  If this is true then LL's policy should not only ban the ability to know an Avatar is online... under this policy no one should also be able to know your status is BUSY or AWAY.  These are also States of the Avatar.

So - a STATE OF AN AVATAR IS NOT A PRIVACY ISSUE.

Now, it would be a NICE FEATURE (not a mandatory law) that a SL Account holder could opt in to the ability to PRETEND that I am offline when I really am not.  And this sorta already exists even though most SL users know how to easily check by other means if you are pretending to be offline.  But the point is that this should be an OPTIONAL FEATURE for each user and not a mandatory law that impacts all users - most of whom dont care that their online status is known.

So lets not jump on the bandwagon of LL's that the state of an avatar is an element of avatar data that must be deemed PRIVATE information.  ITS NOT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question regarding temp textures on "local." That feature does not appear on LL Viewer. Someone here suggested I try that, but it seems to be on Firestorm and Phoenix only. Will that also be removed since it does not appear to be on LL Viewer? If these temp features disappear I think I'll be building at InWorldz or OS Grid. I'm just one of those people that needs to upload textures to try them on, and sometimes I have to do this a lot. If this is not available on LL Viewer than another problem for creators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The local bitmap viewer is being added to the Official Viewer shortly.   

Temp texture uploads are likely to be broken soon, not because LL object to them but because they rely on a hack with texture baking which is very likely to get broken when LL implement some forthcoming fixes to that -- so temp texture uploads will likely be the cost of fewer incidences of bakefail.

To my mind, people are getting alarmed unnecessarily.    The only feature in any tpv at the moment that LL says against 2.K is parcel windlight, which they aren't telling Firestorm to remove because they're working on their own version at the moment.    True Online Status and Viewer Identification tabs are out, but not because of 2K.   But everything else is OK.

The worry is that it may prevent people from working on particular types of new content, but stuff like the UI and controls and RLV and the built in AO and the particle editor and so on are all perfectly safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:

The local bitmap viewer is being added to the Official Viewer shortly.   

Temp texture uploads are likely to be broken soon, not because LL object to them but because they rely on a hack with texture baking which is very likely to get broken when LL implement some forthcoming fixes to that -- so temp texture uploads will likely be the cost of fewer incidences of bakefail.

To my mind, people are getting alarmed unnecessarily.    The only feature in any tpv at the moment that LL says against 2.K is parcel windlight, which they aren't telling Firestorm to remove because they're working on their own version at the moment.    True Online Status and Viewer Identification tabs are out, but not because of 2K.   But everything else is OK.

The worry is that it may prevent people from working on particular types of new content, but stuff like the UI and controls and RLV and the built in AO and the particle editor and so on are all perfectly safe.

 

Thank you for that information. I agree that the local is better, as I am experimenting with it now and it's so much faster. Wish I'd known of this 2 years ago. The temp texture being removed will be totally fine with me.  I just wish they'd give us the option of the Phoenix interface. So much simpler to me for making clothes. I have to admit I've cried Chicken Little over all these changes, but working on my attitude and just accepting that if I don't like their direction, I have an account at InWorldz and will just jump grids. Nothing Else we can do if we don't like it here. The bummer is the amount of money I've put into SL (and many others), really hundreds (probably thousand) dollar (s) and thousands upon thousands of hours. I really think that is why we're so passionate. Those hours and $'s are not for playing but working here. We feel we have this investment beyond some game. Anyways, I've said everything I can say. I hope Linden thinks out of the AOL mindset--they (AOL) couldn't wall up the Internet, and neither can Second Life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Toysoldier Thor wrote:

Now, it would be a NICE FEATURE (not a mandatory law) that a SL Account holder could opt in to the ability to PRETEND that I am offline when I really am not.


I would love that feature "Appear as if offline". If somebody IMs they would get the same reply as if I was really offline. Naturally all other means by which one could see the true online status should then show "Offline".

There are times - building, adjusting clothes, arranging inventory, following group IMs, etc - when one wants to be totally alone, undisturbed by friends' IMs: "Hi, how are you?", "What are you doing?", "Can we chat?", "Can we meet?", etc.

Logging into a virtual world does not always mean that we are at once ready to rock and socialize with our friends. We do need our peace in solitude even in virtual world occasionally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...