Echo Charisma

jwenting wrote: It's not so much a restriction on bots per se as limits on LSL intended to stop scripted objects from overloading the servers by sending messages too quickly (mostly greeters sending messages to arrivals in a sim). The effect this has on spam bots is secondary but very welcome (though I seriously doubt any bot would spam a single group with that many messages that rapidly, I've certainly never seen it). The new rules concerning bots change nothing about the ability for scripts to spam individuals with functions like llInstantMessage, or spam local chat. All they do is restrict all avatars that have declared themselves as scripted agents under a single email address from posting more than 5000 messages (one message to a group with 400 active members online would count as 400 messages under the rules). There are legitimate reasons to have a bot post in group besides spamming. It automates the process of making sure that announcements get to subscribers on time, it updates information on lucky boards or midnight mania for members who want that kind of information, and I was in a group who used a bot to relay local chat to group during evening discussions (so that members who couldn't be on the parcel were still allowed to participate). I have a feeling that this policy wasn't changed as a reaction to spam, it was changed for the same reason the IM option was removed from my.secondlife.com. Group chats are borked, and this is another method to lighten the load. LL needs to be a little less vague on how they handle this. If you're running and writing scripts for multiple bots, there needs to be more than a week's warning to make the necessary changes to make sure the bots aren't collectively exceeding those limits. Although some bot owners have said their bots' messages have been capped, the revision makes it sound like warnings, suspensions and bannings will be the penalties for accidentally going over the limit. If they have the capability to cap with a strict 5000 limit, then that's how the policy should be dealt with.

salmon2003 wrote: I am absolutely new to SL. Do not have any clue about how to build anything. No knowledge of scripting, sculpting. Do not even know exactly what "prim" is. So what advice do veterans have for a noob with big ambitions?! If you're looking for how LSL affects a Metabolt bot (or an Actorbot, or an NN Staffing Bot, etc.) the LSL command you'll need to be familiar with is llInstantMessage. That's the only way to get LSL-API commands from inworld scripts to your bot. You'll be starting out a number of your bot scripts like this.... key botuuid = "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000";string MD5edpassword = "000000aaaaaa000000aaaaaa000000aaaaaa";string commandID = "ned00x00-0000-000x-xxx0";string action = "|MOVETO|walk|";string botmessage; The botuuid is pretty self explanatory, this is the avatar you're sending the commands to. The MD5ed password shows that the object/avatar sending the command is authorized to request the bot perform some action. The commandID lets the bot know that the IM message they got is not idle chitchat, but a request they do something like move, announce something in chat or teleport. The action tells the bot what to do. The string botmessage should combine the strings and send it, via llInstantMessage, to the avatar specified in the key botuuid. The message in the script will look something like this... llInstantMessage (botuuid, commandID + "|" + MD5edpassword + action + "127|129|23"); Take a look at some of the sample scripts from Luke's place at http://slurl.com/Vilmarh/115/149/80/, and take some time to try out some of the things you can do without scripting with Metanomy. Metanomy is nice to plot out movement (like a rough draft) but you'll eventually want to learn how to script some of those basic actions into inworld scripts.

KittyCat Ninetails wrote: actually I know of lots of textures where the texture makes the build. But never are the tos that restrictive. I, as you prob have guessed, am a little frustrated by these tos. I find that I only buy sculptie maps now from either those creators who do not put those kind of restrictions on their product, or those I personally contact and get their approval to use copy/trans as permissions on a build I make with their product. One problem I find is I have thousands (literally) of sculptie maps. Some of them I purchased over 2 years ago. I cannot (and do not even try) keep track of changing tos on items I already own. So if I bought a sculptie from John and his tos at the time was that I could not give away or sell the map..and now his tos is that I cannot give away or sell the item I make from the map with copy/trans rights....do I have to worry about his new tos? The chances that I kept his old tos notecard are somewhere between slim and none....and slim is on his way out of town. I find myself rapidly coming to the conclusion that if I did not make it, I won't use it. And since I spend a ton of money on sculptie maps and textures, and I am prob not alone on this conclusion, are the makers of maps not shooting themselves in the foot by making these restrictions? The way this problem has been resolved in 3D marketplaces are universal EULAs. And for building tools and sculpt maps, there needs to be a standard. If a sculpt map creator can't work with the marketplace's EULA for similar items, then they need to find some other outlet for selling those items. It protects everyone from these kinds of disputes because if you're familiar with the EULA for one item, you're familiar with them all, no "small print" that makes an expensive purchase useless for commerical builds. A few standarized EULAs for different products: end user products, building items, etc, would prevent a lot of headaches for merchants, customers, and LL when there's a dispute. If you agree to sell something on marketplace, you agree that the marketplace EULA for that category is binding. If you sell the item inworld only, then you have the right to make up whatever EULA you want to make up, and buyer beware.

Parhelion Palou wrote: If people didn't build, you'd be very bored in SL. Creators may be a minority, but they're the ones who make SL possible. For builders...probably the biggest perk LL could offer is an "invisibility mode" where builders could check a box on their dashboard that allows them to log on to SL without alerting everyone on their friends' list or announcing it in your profile. I'd be a lot more excited about the sandboxes if 6 people weren't IMing me from the moment I begin rezzing. Keeping this layer of invisibility separate from the "friend can see me online" invisibility would be a big plus, even if it's premium only. Sometimes I have 30-45 minutes in RL free where I'd like to just go into SL and build. Rather than announce to everyone who IMs me my status is busy, I'd rather just not announce I'm online at all. This would continue to make premium worth it to me.

Imnotgoing Sideways wrote: I probably spend an average of L$600 per week. I been in SL for over 3 years. I still expect to spend about L$100 to L$300 this weekend. Spending isn't a past-tense thing for me. I haven't stopped yet. ()y Amen. I'm happy with my shape and skin, but that doesn't limit RL-like deviations such as changes in wardrobe, hairstyles and makeup. There are a whole lot of excuses for dressing up in SL and $10-12 US a month isn't outrageous to keep your look updated.

Greene Paine wrote: What if the argument is already proven 100% correct and there is no other side? Would it be possible to craft an argument so perfectly that no troll could find ammunition, or their counter-argument would be so silly as to invoke endless laughter? Let's find out! Good things are good, no good things are bad. This statement semantically is 100% correct and you can not disagree with it any more than you can argue that 1+1 is anything but 2. Other than the fact that the terms "good" and "bad" are extremely vague terms that are subject to a wide variety of interpretation. Dictionary.com has 41 definitions for the "good", and 36 for bad , both as adjectives. The definitions of "bad" range from "not good in any manner or degree" to "outstandingly excellent; first-rate." With that range of definition, it's very possible to describe someone can be devoted or skilled (good) to a theory or cause which is incorrect or morally repugnant (bad). An example sentence using the two together would be: "Finding a poster with a good track record of spouting bad logic is very common on message boards these days." Kudos for comparing the relationship between two highly subjective words with the addition of natural numbers, but I'm pretty sure proofs concerning the adjectives "good" and "bad" are not covered in the Peano postulates. A few other posters have made the argument for the law of diminishing returns: that often while more is better, too much of a good thing is usually a bad thing.