Jump to content

Gabriele Graves

Resident
  • Content Count

    1,041
  • Joined

Community Reputation

1,510 Excellent

About Gabriele Graves

  • Rank
    Peachy

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't deny that I am a cynic at heart. I don't know about you though but not everything I say is cynical and I actually wasn't being cynical about this. Business is business and they have to look after their bottom line. I would expect names that don't bring in much money to be changed first, that is if they do partial changes. If something is performing that meets or exceeds expectations, it doesn't need to be changed. That is just good business and allows their efforts to be focused elsewhere. You may called that cynical if you wish, I like to think of it as being a realist.
  2. No offence but you don't know that for sure. Even if LL says that, it doesn't necessarily make it true. You find that cynical? I see it as being business savvy enough to not change a product that is producing money. How could I not bring money into it? You pay for new names, it is money oriented. Here is a better answer for you perhaps. Nobody knows when and there will likely not be any warning when it changes. Unless an LL employee comes along an gives that information in the meantime.
  3. I'm sorry, in what way is it rude? It isn't likely that popular names will be replaced whilst people are willing to buy them.
  4. When the money starts to dry up from the current set, I expect.
  5. Hmmm, I must admit I missed this aspect in my thinking. I change my opinion, without revocation being a part of the solution, I would not be happy introducing these kinds of changes to llTeleportAgent(). On reflection, I think it should stay as it is.
  6. I am not sure of the history of this. Was it always like this or was it restricted to handle a particular issue? I think I could probably agree with this. I think it should either be limited to within the same region or the permission request dialog should state the destination region name. Otherwise, it seems to me that if a person isn't sure about the request, they would deny it.
  7. Well that is the nub of it then. You can pretty much justify or frame anything whichever way you want but it doesn't change the fact that others may look at that for what it is. Consider this though, this very course of action may cause more mistrust amongst others. I myself am certainly not getting warm fuzzies or the urge to get all trusty over this.
  8. I don't see sitting and wearing items as implicit as you suggest. Sure a blue permissions dialog is not present, however the user has initiated an action (to sit or to wear an item), which is an explicit permission grant in concept because it can be given with full knowledge of what will happen and full consent. The user knows full well (or at least can learn/discover) that no other permissions can be given along with that and have full confidence that payment cannot be taken from them for example. That isn't as implicit as doing a completely unrelated action (i.e. cross a parcel border) an
  9. I don't believe that this is a solvable problem. It's the law of least surprise that should rule here...unless you want something surprising. The devil of the detail is in how to possibly cater to the ones who do and those that don't. The problem is always people. They cannot be trusted for the most part. Sure, some individuals can be but others will ruin things for everyone. This is why we have to have explicit permissions for everything. It is an inconvenience for all concerned but it is necessary when there are untrustworthy people who will abuse any trust given and exploit an
  10. Yes we do and this is why lots of different perspectives are valuable to help us understand the whole of the problem instead of the facets we can get our heads around. I have never used RLV and never had anything that I wanted to do that would require it.
  11. I have had some further thoughts about this as well. Obviously there are people who don't mind, may even want, to be subject to a land owner absolute control and there are obviously land owners who want to exert that control. There should be a way to accommodate those people as well as people who don't want it. All of this stuff, Experiences and this proposal come down to control. Those who want it, those who want to give it and those who don't. It would be better to have all of this in one place in my opinion. RLV is a system that specialises in giving control to others. I thin
  12. Molly, I know that you are only trying to think your way around to find a system that works for all but honestly I don't think there is a way and I don't see how this is any better, in fact it is worse than what we have currently with Experiences. There are always problems with time-based stuff for a variety of reasons which means once again consent isn't freely given under those circumstances. Opt-outs are pretty much cop-outs when it comes to anything. Only with opt-in can you really be sure a person gave consent. It basically boils down to this, it's about trust. The land owner i
  13. That doesn't work for double-prim land. It goes straight to auction still.
  14. Extracting "permission" in an underhand automatic way is not equivalent to that person giving consent. The very idea of getting permission without asking explicitly via any mechanism that a reasonable person would understand as such is just a way to circumvent getting permission. So let's not baste the turkey here. It is not reasonable for people to expect that the instant they step foot over a land parcel border or TP to a private region that they can be subject to whatever the land owner wants. That is so much horse-poo and it's an over-inflated sense of entitlement of exactly what y
  15. I would think so, the calling card just contains a UUID and is resolved when you open it. You can check this by editing the asset in your inventory and changing the UUID to the one for someone else. Once you close the window, the calling card will change to that person's name.
×
×
  • Create New...