Gabriele Graves

Would also help avoid creating more cookie cutter map monotony potentially.

I'd agree with this this too. More fake and interesting venues would be great, no actual commerce.

Nobody to my knowledge in this topic said they maxed out their hardware though. In case the "you" in the above reply was literally me rather than general, I certainly didn't say I did. Feel free not to respond

The title of this topic suggested to me a boxing match between LL and the residents. Any appetite for blood sports? Perhaps a boxing arena in Belli where every week a Linden or Mole takes on the best resident that Belli can put forward

The SL viewer doesn't max out the hardware though remember? That's one of the biggest complaints about it.

Everyone has different preferences and what I am reading in the last few pages of this topic is that some people are judging others for having different preferences to them because it doesn't suit them. When I go to a club, I am there to listen to the music and engage in some light social chatter with the people in the room who want to participate in that. I don't really want the vast majority of random IMs. People often feel free to say a whole bunch of stuff in IMs that they would never say in chat where others can see which can include a whole range of bad behaviours. Surprise, surprise! If I don't know a person and they cannot say what they want to me in chat, then I don't want to receive it. I understand that it's not reasonable to expect others to know my preferences without telling them and so my auto-response is on to let them know that I am happy to talk in chat but not privately in IMs. I get that some people feel more comfortable in IMs instead of chat but as they are a stranger to me, I don't have to indulge them. To me talking one-on-one in private IMs only at a SL social gathering of any kind is no different to going to one in RL where everyone is able to text everyone in the room whether they know them or are a total stranger and that is what they are exclusively doing so there is no general chatter at all. That's not a social environment to me. In my world, chat is where the casual social interactions take place, IMs are where private conversations take place. Of course, it's different if I know the person beyond exchanging a few words and/or we are chatting in a group.

You don't think we check hmmm? Interesting...

Not true. It only hurts a badly designed and/or built computer that is prone to heat death but then any graphics application or game designed to use the available computer's resources to the fullest would do that to it too not just LOD 4's in SL. These computers are effectively broken products. It sucks if you bought a computer like this and didn't realise it. I can certainly imagine there are many PC's, especially laptops, out there that are prone to this but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the computer that is broken. A properly designed and built computer with good airflow in and around it, with a properly functioning cpu/graphics card combination screaming away at the fastest rate possible can cope with all of this and SL's LOD 4 easily and not burn out. I've certainly never had a burned out graphics card from using SL despite keeping my LODs at 4 for the most part. Why would I keep my LODs at 4? The difference in performance between LODs 2 and 4 on my hardware is negligible and I don't believe that after such a long time of using it this way I've just been lucky either. I am aware that will not be the case for the vast majority of people and most should probably stay with the defaults so it's sound advice generally but to say "LODs 4 definitely hurts your computer" is just plain wrong. The difference is the type of hardware you buy.

Well, well. This is an interesting turn of events. I remember when I created a topic floating the idea of an LL run inworld redelivery system. The result? Savaged by virtually all the respondents saying what a bad idea it was and now here we are with this a real possibility. I think this is an excellent thing especially if it leads to a standardised vendor system and a universal inworld system of redelivery for copyable items. That would be a very significant pro-customer step forward if done right.

Makes you wonder what that kind of conditioning is doing to our brains really.

So the same general information that everybody has about wanting SL to be easier and less complex but nothing that applies to Experiences specifically. I don't even disagree with that generally. SL should be simpler and easier for people. I just draw different conclusions about how and where that should be applied. Simplicity doesn't mean not having advanced options but in having a set of sensible, safe defaults initially presented with more options to drill-down into for advanced users should there be a need to have them. A UI should be as simple as it can be to get the job done properly. If you dumb something down too much it isn't fit for purpose. For an extreme example, removing "Yes/No" buttons and only providing an "OK" button for dialogs that ask questions. It becomes no longer fit for purpose and is useless but has one less option so is simpler. This is exactly the problem with the Experience requests. They are not fit for purpose as is if that purpose is to get informed consent. There is no meaningful information in there that allows anyone to distinguish one Experience from another. Nobody should be asking "Why don't some residents want to agree to an Experience?" but instead should be asking "What is provided in that request that would make anyone agree?". It might as well be a box that just says "Region Blah wants you to agree to an Experience, Agree/Disagree" for all the difference it makes. Unfortunately no amount of text you can put in that request box would give a proper account of how granted permissions will be used, when and how frequently and then enforce that. Therefore, alternative methods are needed to make this feature fit for purpose of operating under informed consent. So if it isn't fit for purpose then it isn't complicating it to add extra parts to make it useful, it is just making it fit for purpose. Finally, no offense intended to Love but my opinion is that adding MFA isn't going to fix anything and doesn't add anything extra that is useful.

I don't feel uncomfortable with the idea of Experiences at all. I just don't want to participate on the basis of what is provided. The whole implementation seems like massive cludge tacked on to get around asking people permissions properly so they can make informed choices and take the single request individually approach. I think you are over-playing and over-dramatising the effect my "wishlist" would have on anyone. I disagree that there would be any great inconvenience to anyone at all. There would be a couple of extra buttons to have to read and understand, that's all. So give us some concrete data that backup "what most people have been asking for" outside forums people and Experience creators. If you don't have it then you don't have the full picture anymore than anyone else. Like I said above, I'm not expecting this. Just providing a perspective. Nobody knows how many people out there would agree with it.

Perhaps but nothing was ever done perfect the first time and that's no reason not to do better later. Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting anything to change. I give this information about what I would want so that others can understand a different perspective and realise that not everyone just wants dialogs asking permissions just to go away because immersion, less friction, etc.

I can only speak for myself because I have no idea how many other people are like me or not. For that matter, neither does anyone else so there is that. For me, I would only willingly opt-in to an Experience on the basis that every single time it wanted access permission I get a popup telling me exactly what object wants it, it's location on the region and what the permission it's requesting. More importantly I want the option to deny each and every access I don't want. As a nod to Rolig who brings up a great point, I would also want a Sit permission to be added just for Experiences. On every request I would want the option of "No and don't ask me again" which would be for that type of request only. The initial Experience permission request dialog would also have the option "Ask me for every access". I don't care if that sounds confusing, cumbersome or whether someone thinks that breaks immersion. For me, that is what I would want and it seems simple. It doesn't stop anyone giving a blanket grant in exactly the same way they do today if they want so there are no real downsides though obviously I expect "confusing and too complex" to be raised as the rather lame excuses. However, very similar requests to these are present in lots of apps, on our phones, web browsers, etc. and everyone appears to cope just fine with those. Footnote: Even better would be the above options in conjunction with a temporary one-visit-only opt-in. Maybe a viewer setting, "Don't make Experiences Permanent". There wouldn't any need to remember anything about the Experience once I teleport out and so there wouldn't need to be a revoke. Due to that, there wouldn't be a need to even record that Experience in the list because I am not permanently accepting anything. I could be OK without this part though, even though it would be very desirable to me to have.

That's not what the SL Jedi were telling me.

Got Low Overall Operator Malfunction DRAPE

I currently have an in-progress bottle from the Czech Republic in my cupboard.

Read what I posted more carefully.

It is not a case of being fine about an orb or not. The land owner has the ability to use an orb or an Experience and I support them using the tools that they have paid to use. I have never suggested that either of them should be denied to the land owner whether I like the use of those tools or not. Da5id asked for feedback which is what I gave, on my preferences and why. I don't see the problem with that. I've never seen an orb just randomly TP anyone home, they operate the moment you step on the land or after a delay and in the latter case I have always seen a warning. At least with a TP home, you know where you are going and their influence on your avatar ends at that point. It is one thing for a land owner to want to refuse access to someone and have them removed but a completely different thing for them to potentially mess with the control of your avatar in some unspecified way for their kicks.

I'm also good with this plan. We could cancel it completely for my money.

I'm not selling products or providing a venue for others so I don't have to worry about making sure everyone can get around or use something generically. I'm a Mainlander and my land parcels don't require special teleporters that others need to use, they can just walk, teleport normally or fly. My furniture is just used with AVSitter or a sit script just like it always was before Experiences. I script for fun, challenge and to achieve the things I want to do for me and my partner mainly but yes if it came to it I would either forgo a particular piece of functionality or use a workaround should one exist if I created something for others. So far it hasn't been any great hardship but then my needs aren't great.

As you might have gathered I don't use RLV (and never have) and this is just another reason to cement that choice too.

Yes, when I said that, it was in the context of whilst I am on that region. I am familiar with how Experiences work. I am a scripter and have played with them with my own scripts and I so do know what they can and cannot do. I am well aware that they aren't magic. I never said they can teleport you back to a region you have left. I think you may have misinterpreted what I meant. I am doubtful that AR's for Experiences doing this would be effective and it would be difficult to prove they would be.

I dislike intensely that LL put you and others like you in this quandry. It feels that it should have been possible for them to do better for us all.

Sure. It's because it is a blind, blanket grant to everything the Experience system can do. It doesn't matter what a notecard or sign says nothing makes that binding and no assurances will ever change that. When outside of an Experience I can be sure that nothing can randomly and without warning repeatedly TP me to unknown locations or sit me. I know what to expect. However, Experience scripts can grab you anywhere and anytime, sit you, teleport you, etc. with no explicit interaction initiated, sit or whatever and keep doing it over and over (in the later case even if I choose to stand) and therefore a person has potentially no clue whether it will happen at any random point. That's just too much for me. It doesn't matter how awesome someone thinks their Experience is, how easier it makes things and/or what wonderful effects they can achieve, I just don't want it on those terms. I am sure that you have the best intentions Da5id but even with the best intentions what one person thinks is fun, another may find highly annoying and there are many in SL who don't have the best intentions. Every Experience owner says something to the effect of "I wouldn't be able to do what I want without the Experience" and "you can trust me and have nothing to fear" but how is that in any way reassuring because even the worst person can give the same platitudes. Even bringing up the fear aspect misses the point. It isn't about fear for me. Accepting an Experience is not an informed choice about how it will be used and I do not wish to consent to them on those terms as they are not agreeable to me. So I choose to opt-out every time. I don't come to SL to blindly allow others to control my avatar to that degree in a blanket fashion while I am on their land, if anyone requires that for my visit then I prefer not to visit. I have come to terms with the fact there are a growing number of places that are in effect closed to me. I just treat them as if I was banned. I just wish there was an option in the viewer that would refuse me access to land with Experiences on them.