Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral
  1. funny you say this, because no where in my post am i demanding anything other than asking if we're ever going to see something that LL said they would be "giving" us. it is quite healthy and polite to ask, especially when something is "promised" (and yes, telling people that they're getting something, is a promise), there comes an expectation of receiving. would i have cared if they had said "we would try to provide..." or even saying "here's a free gift" and then had said nothing about giving us more on a regular basis ? no. i would not have. i love surprises like the next person, but when someone says they're giv ing something regularly and does not deliver, their credability and reliability decreases. and right now, not a good time for them to do this.
  2. curious as to whether it was a one time deal or not. they have this wonderful annoucement, make it sound like it is going to be consistently ongoing, and then nothing for a what, almost 3 months now (september gift was in early september) ? funny thing is i can remember reading this post and others related to it where it was mentioned to be a monthly gift available at the first weekend of every month when that blog post originally came out, and now, i find no mention of this anywhere, so did LL edit their own blog post to take out the original reference ? anyways. if LL is going to come out with these wonderful new presents for their members, maybe they should keep them consistent and not have them be forgotten. curious though as to why a 50% discount now (is it that bad for them ?)...
  3. There honestly needs to be better analysis tools here, because some of those do not accurately reflect the current state in SL. yes there may be a spike in new registrations, and yes that spike may contribute greatly to the consistency of logged-in monthly users. but why not take into account as well how the ratio of new users versus deleted or inactive accounts ? and then compare those numbers and apply them to the rest of these graphs ? i am sure there would be a different story. as everything, LL tries to paint a pretty picture, but to those of us who live in SL day in and day out, there is a much different and bleaker picture being seen. kind of makes me wonder about modern propaganda at times when i see this information. there is a lot here not being shared by LL, and it is obvious LL does not really care about those of us who pay $ to play. as long as there is money flowing to them, they are happy. i wonder what happens when this slows down and stops...is that when they will stand up and look around and actually realize that perhaps they should have catered to its resident more and their own pockets less ? sorry if i sound bitter, i'm not holding back. i have not been around as long as many out there, but i do love SL, and i hate having to say goodbye to friends i have made in this world, because so many are leaving (various reasons), and LL does not seem to care at all.... wake up !!!! ...before it is too late.
  4. i do understand this, but my suggestion was to have a restore feature within a resizing script, and not a simple resizing only script. the restore would be useful if a mistake was made (which does happen) and we needed to start over when modifying an item.
  5. there is much information and debate on the validity of permissions so far within this thread, and i thank everyone who has responded, and greatly appreciate you all taking the time to share. but some point have been brought up, and i have a few things to add now. yes, i do understand the need and benefits of copy/no copy versus transfer/no transfer. most of the items i do buy have modifiable permission attached, and i have never had any issues with this one permission type. i do agree that a more complex and defined permission system is needed now with items, especially with the new wave of design creeping in, as LL does need to adapt and update to match these new trends. many places i frequent show the ads for the clothing, with "fatpacks" or style / color variations of an item, but it is not often now that i see the permissions actually listed on the advertizing boards and displays. of course, we all "impulse" shop when we see something we really love and our "inherent" need to HAVE TO HAVE IT lol. so we miss these things sometimes and forget to check, or only notice once bought. then what ? we can't contact the creators and ask for different permissions since we cannot return or exchange if it non-transferable. that would be dishonest to ask for a new copy with different permissions simply because of a lack of paying attention. it would be nice though, whoever, to have displays in stores with, say, modify/copy permissions, and a second set with modify/transfer permissions. i would hate to contact every single creator so request a specific item with varied permissions. once we open those doors, these creators would be flooded with IM's constantly and consistently, and would be unfair to them. they are busy enough as it is bringing us quality items and maintaining the stores and merchandises, i would not feel comfortable imposing on them in such a way every time i found something i liked and wanted with those permissions. it would be so much simpler to have resizing scripts inside prim items if the item is no copy, with a "restore" function that would reset back to factory settings. some items do have this, and would prevent "accidental" modifications, or assist in remodifying an item if wearing a different shape. i would never resell a used item. i would simply love to give it away to someone new to SL who would benefit from a gifted item, which would otherwise collect dust in my inventory or be deleted. there is nothing wrong with this, is there ? how or what can we do to perhaps change inherent permissions or advertizing varied permissions on items ? is there something that can be done now, other than harrasing store owners and creators with IM's ?
  6. many of the stores i go to, or have been to, have their clothing articles as "no transfer" as opposed to "no copy". i am finding this frustrating. i have stopped buying clothing from any store which has this set on their articles as a result. i mean, for me, if i don't wear something, or it collects dust, then i should be able to give it away to someone and lose it from my inventory, especially if i paid $ for it. there so many new people out there who could and would benefit from a small gift like this, and could use something nice if it is only collecting dust (so to speak) in my inventory. this would be a better option than deleting it . so why can't clothing / fashion stores change this and make their clothing items no copy ?
  7. i would assume one of the reasons is perhaps a personal script inserted in an item which the creator does not want to share, or does not want someone else to modify their items in any way (ie shapes, colors..) so that they can resold by them as their own, thereby ripping off the original creator, which does happen in SL unfortunately. aside from that, i do not know. what gets me are items that are non-transferable...i stopped buying anything that has this as a option. if i buy something, and decide i do not want it (for whatever reason) and decide to give it someone else, i should be able to, knowing full well that (if no copy) i can lose it from my inventory.
  • Create New...