kiramanell

Thomas Galbreus wrote: There are also people who consent to cannibals eating them. No problem then? Going off the deep end much? Seriously, I had a teleporter once, that required me to activate my viewer's RVL plugin (so i wouldn't have to sit on the thang first). So I did some checking; and, sure enough, nobody can make you do anything, unless you actually specifically allow another to animate/control your avi. Hence, all master/slave situations you have ever faced (except for installing hard disks, lol) were, per definition, consensual.

Thomas Galbreus wrote: How often do I have to repeat that I dismiss slavery no matter if the slave agrees? You know, there's a solid expression that goes 'If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.' You have already decided that any submissiveness is slavery, therefore your mind stays closed. If you knew even the basics about human sexuality, you'd know, like it or not, that power is simply an integral part of how humans experience sexual (fantasy). It's why men fantasize about having sex with the chamber-maid, for instance: it's not that exercising power or violence even need an actual place in the fantasy: it's just the idea alone of having absolute control that some ppl find enticing. And, conversely, others simply like to be on the other end of that equation, and be submissive party. This is all Psychology 101, btw. Nothing earth-shatteringly new. We live in a free world. You don't wanna be part of the whole bondage scene? Fine, don't. Nor do I, for that matter. But at least I can accept the sexuality of others, even when it differs from mine, without immediately resorting to calling it 'an affront to human dignity.'

Thomas Galbreus wrote I don't even have a problem with explicit pornographic content as such - as long as it is not offered within a product I would like to use for something else, and as long as it is not an assault on human dignity, which I find especially disturbing if it is outright misogynic, which most porn clearly is. In other words, you *do* have a problem with pornographic content. One person's submissiveness may look misogynistic to you, but that is just your own way of looking at it. Offered a choice, I don't want to be associated with a product that is permissive with that. So, again, if a new virtual world starts without porn, I will prefer that over SL(1). Yet a choice is precisely what you want to see taken away from others. Yes, the new Disney-feel might make the next SL more palatable for you, but sex simply sells, big time. This virtual world, and any to come, I'll reckon, by and large, simply mirror the real world. So, ultimately, it would appear it's actually the real world you're having have issues with. And that is fine. But let's not shape the Brave New World after your, sorry to say, rather narrow notions of how ppl are allowed to have sex -- if at all.

Phil Deakins wrote: So from starting out saying, in a complaining manner, that you'd put thousands of dollars and even more thousands of hours of time into SL, you're now down to the artists. It's good to see that you have become realistic regarding the money and time: realistic being what you suggested others become. So about the artists. As I said, those who create their artwork outside and upload it, can upload it again. Their artwork will still exist, so no problem there. Those who create their artwork inside SL (I don't know any such artwork) still have years to display or sell it. They may even be thinking that SL2 will enable them to create better works of art, and be actually looking forward to it. Either way, you're not one, so it doesn't affect you. There. I think we've covered everything you brought up now. The money you spent was to enjoy your hobby at the time you spent it. The time you spent was time spent enjoying your hobby. As for the artwork, you're not an artist, so it doesn't affect you. Everything is good. Like I said, I feel I have sufficiently made my position clear. At this point, I think you're just trolling, so there's no point in continuing with you.

[i'm (pretty) in pink] "Then you chose to spend, knowing that the lifespan of what you bought would be limited, so there's no cause for complaint there." And no one is complaining. Just people expressing their sense of loss, is what you're not getting. "You still have years of use, at least, left in the homestead sim and its contents and, since you can't have a homestead without also having a full sim, you must be renting it. So no financial loss there either, because you get 100% use of the rent every month." It just occured to me that you're being defensive about this, like a business man being accused of unfair practises. Yet, for some reason, I can't seem to impart on you that people can simply experience a loss over what they have built up, period (sans any judgement towards LL). And that there is thus no reason for you to defend LL (as if they were being attacked). "Time spent doing things is different than money, of course, and you've spent a lot of time doing your thing with the sims. But that's been your hobby, and not even time spent building a business up, or anything like that. And you've enjoyed doing it as a hobby. Again, I can understand a sense of lost time, but it isn't realistic. Time spent doing a hobby is never lost time, even when the hobby ends." Imagine you were an artist in RL, and you spent several years making beautiful paintings (--insert gratuitous 'SL is not RL!' comment here--). Then suddenly someone comes along, taking it all away, adding a snarky remark that it's unreasonable for you to feel the loss, cuz you got your time worth enjoying doing the painting. Yeah, no. Or tells you that you only rented your studio, so no loss there either. See, that is how you reason. And you seem to be so obtuse about understanding people's sense of loss, that I think you're either doing it on purpose, or that you simply cannot tear yourself away from the business perspective of having to be defensive about what you continually perceive to be 'complaints' towards SL. Assuming the latter, your entire 'defense' is basically just a giant strawman. At any rate, I think I have sufficiently explained what manner of 'creative' loss people can experience. I guess you either get it, or you don't.

Phil Deakins wrote: Tell me something. Are you considering that the upgrading of your wardrobe/avi during the last two days will turn out to be a loss when SL eventually shuts down? If so, why did you spend that money? We've known for weeks that LL is making SL2, which will most likely cause SL to eventually close, so what possessed you to spend the money, knowing that what you spent the money on won't last? Tell me something else please. You said you've spent thousands of dollars on building uip and decorating entire sims. What happened to those sims? How many do you have? Some details of your situation, and what you actually mean, would be very helpful for us to understand why you consider that it will all be such a loss I spent the recent money on my wardrobe/avi, simply because I wanted to look better. And because suddenly not spending would result in me accelerating the very downfall of SL I seek to avoid, Besides, I could close everything down now, on my end, and then find out SL is still going on for another 5 years; and then the joke would be on me. As for rmy sims, I had a full region and a homestead once. Now I just have the homestead, as I felt the cost of a full sim was just too much. As for my loss, I have certainy spent several thousands of bucks on homes, furniture, clothes, and what not (I have an expensive taste). It's not the loss of money I bemoan, though (that just mildly stings, as it were). Rather it's the sense of loss I feel about losing all my work, and see all dedication I put into my numerous deco projects go to waste. Many of my homes I considered small pieces of art, by the time I was done with them. And with no way to preserve them any more, yeah, you bet I feel sad about it. Basically, my sim was like a giant dollhouse to me.

Coby Foden wrote: kiramanell wrote: And now on to some reality. There are ppl who use SL for something else than a 'glorified chatroom.' People like me who spent thousands of dollars, and a manifold of that in hours, on building up and decorating entire sims. To dismiss their loss the way you do is rather bizarre (though it matches your 'indifferent' sniley perfectly). Heck, I spent the last 2 days alone on upgrading my wardrobe/avi. I can't even fathom how much more time went into *creating* all that stuff I bought. All of that will be gone, for ever, like teardrops in the rain. Anyone even remotely invested in SL (beyond the most superficial of experiences) will feel that loss. You have agreed to the TOS. Did you read it thoroughly? If you did you would know that SL is not a safe vault where anything ever created or bought would stay for ever. Everything can dissappear for any reason or no reason at all. We have agreed and accepted that risk; everything in SL is and has always been on temporary basis. That's the reality. This is not dismissing anybody's loss - it's just the fact of things. http://lindenlab.com/tos 9.2 Linden Lab provides the Service on an "as is" basis, without express or implied warranties, and all Content, Linden Dollars and virtual goods have no guarantee or warranty of any compensable value. LL having the right to take it away from us does not detract, one iota, from the resulant loss felt. In fact, the two aren't even related.

Coby Foden wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I see people bemoaning the probability that they won't be able to continue their SL, along with all their stuff, in SL2. ... what ever Linden Lab does; it does not please some. :smileyindifferent: And now on to some reality. There are ppl who use SL for something else than a 'glorified chatroom.' People like me who spent thousands of dollars, and a manifold of that in hours, on building up and decorating entire sims. To dismiss their loss the way you do is rather bizarre (though it matches your 'indifferent' sniley perfectly). Heck, I spent the last 2 days alone on upgrading my wardrobe/avi. I can't even fathom how much more time went into *creating* all that stuff I bought. All of that will be gone, for ever, like teardrops in the rain. Anyone even remotely invested in SL (beyond the most superficial of experiences) will feel that loss.

Whilst I make no use of SL's Adult stuff myself (it's just pixels, for crying out-loud), nonetheless, like it or not, Adult content makes up a significant portion of SL business. Like porn sites on the Internet. Also, please, don't turn SL into another censored, moralizing Disney feature. We Europeans like to think for ourselves. if you don't want to be confronted with Adult content, set your MP filters accordingly, and don't visit Adult sims.

Phil Deakins wrote: That's expected - less spending as SL2 approaches. And I agree that it will help SL1 to close sooner rather than later.A few people are expecting SL1 to continue longer than I think it will. I can't see it continuing for much more than a year after SL2 is launched. I'll be very surprised if it continues for 2 years. But that's just my guess. Pretty much what I expect too. I predict 2-3 years ere SL2 becomes live. Then 2 years, tops, before SL will fall below the 'viable' threshold. Which is still ca. 5 years.

Kenbro Utu wrote: kiramanell wrote: I stand to lose it all. And this was always the case. Did you really think SL would stay open indefinitely? If you did, then you spent foolishly. A bizarre way of thinking, along the lines of "You're not losing anything, because you already had your enjoyment out of it." To answer your question, though, indefinitely is precisely how long I thought SL would stay open, LOL. Because that's precisely what indefinite means: "not definite; without fixed or specified limit." (You probably thought it meant 'always', right?) Actually, pretty much all businesses operate under the 'indefinite' paradigm: they are open until you hear otherwise. For instance, no MMO could ever get ppl to spend money on the game if ppl knew, today, that tomorrow the company went bankrupt. The whole precept of continued spending only works *precisely* because ppl do NOT know when their business will shut down. It's no different for SL. Now that SL has all but lost its 'indefinite' jacket, ppl will start spending less on it (especially towards the end). Try and look upon this fact without judgement, please. Yes, ironically, by spending less, some ppl will accelerate the very downfall of SL they decry; but the reality remains, that if you don't want ppl to spend less, don't tell them you're planning on closing down! And allow me to immediately debunk the faux rebuttal of saying LL said they had no plans to close SL down. Because Ebbe also (indirectly) said SL's continued existence is predicated upon the success of SL2 (as they are necessarily competing products, whatever name you give the new incarnation). Ebbe pretty much said that, if at that time, when SL2 has drawn away too much from SL, thus making the latter no longer economically viable, our current virtual world may shut down. So, while that doesn't technically constitute a direct plan for shutting SL down (semantics, really), it's nonetheless a plan to start planning for SL's demise, should SL2 become too popular at its expense.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Nobody will lose anything when SL2 comes along. When SL2 comes along... Those who put a lot of money in through the years, just for enjoyment, had their enjoyment from it. No loss. Those who put time and money into creating a business, made money from it. No loss. Those who rely on income from SL, knew from the start that it wasn't reliable for the long term. They've made money, so no loss. Those who have large amounts of land have it for business purposes, or they wouldn't have such large amounts of land. They've made money on it. No loss. Nobody will lose anything that they haven't already had their money's worth for. You keep saying that like it's gospel, Phil.. That is your opinion. Not everyone looks at it the same way you do. Every time you have posted this you come across as a pompous ass. Thats my opinion anyway. Well said! I am actually with JessieStiles1 on this. Whilst some ppl continually rather rudely try and dismiss any negative aspects of the announcement, JessieStiles1 nevertheless is absolutely right in saying not everyone uses SL as a 'glorified chatroom.' Those, like me, who spent thousands of rl dollars on SL, building up my sim, ever modding and decorating my various homes, I stand to lose it all. And some argument are forced to the point of being uebersilly, like: "Nobody will lose anything that they haven't already had their money's worth for." Phil, I guess the bank should just foreclose your home then, saying you already got your money's worth out of it?! No loss. In fact, with that silly argument, no one could ever be said to have lost anything. Some folks stand to lose a lot. Having to re-buy and/or rebuild everything from scratch doesn't equate to 'No loss.'

Teagan Tobias wrote: For a coder to say they can't do last names is lazy or stupid on there part, its a computer, just code it. And yes I have done and worked with coders. Now that said, there may be a lot of people stuck with the last name of Resident, but that has nothing to do with bringing back last names. Now bringing back last names and changing everyone from Resident to some other last name, now that is a horse of a different color. But again, bringing back last names can be done. But we will not see it because LL does not care to put forth the effort. IMHO I feel you're splitting hairs a bit. Often when a coder says it can't be done, what he/she really means, is that it can't be done reasonably. A responsible coder will also consider the collateral damage of a change (like, in this case, scripts breaking, for instance; and/or security orb notecards, etc). Also, seems some folks seem to think LL took away their last names just for spite. Way I recall it, though, is that the 'Resident' part was added, so as to make it easier (for scripts/security reasons) etc,. to determine who's s real human, and who's just a survey bot or something.

Masami Kuramoto wrote: Innula Zenovka wrote: SL2 is going to have what Cloud Party, Blue Mars and Open Sim never had -- a functional and very liquid economy right from the word go. Since L$ accounts will be accessible from both grids, people are going to have far more willing to drop a few hundred L$ on their first and second visits than they were anywhere else, and having done that, they'll have more of a reason to return for more visits, and maybe bring some friends. Yes, but will they spend more in total? I don't think so. A considerable part of SL's current population has no payment info on file. The idea that SL 2 will turn freeloaders into paying customers or even attract large numbers of new customers with no prior SL experience is quite far fetched in my opinion. I think it is more likely that SL 2 will be designed to provide an experience similar to SL 1 but at much lower operational cost for LL, e.g. by launching simulators on demand from cold storage rather than having lots of empty regions burn CPU cycles all the time. However, no such cost reduction through SL 2 will materialize as long as the Lab has to keep SL 1 running anyway. Developing SL 2 makes no sense unless the goal is to get rid of SL 1. (from the FS site) QUESTION: ”Does Linden Lab have plans, either near or far, to shut down Second Life…” ANSWER: ”No. Absolutely not… ” – Pete Linden I'm sure they don't. None of which detracts anything from Ebbe's original comment, though, that they may decide, *later*, to shut down SL1, should it no longer prove profitable alongside SL2. It's a bit of semantics, really (because technically they wouldn't have made the decision now, but somewhere down the road). In other words, we still know nothing more. Which isn't all that unfair per se, btw: no company will (or even can) ever give a 100% assurance of continued operation.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: You have to be premium to buy land from LL. You are renting land from a second party. Which means they control the land, you can only put your things on it. 99% of the time you can not edit the terrain like you can if you buy fom LL. I think you may be underestimating the professionalism of the larger Landlords. I'm with a major subsidiary of Anshe Chung. I get full Estate Rights. The *only* thing I cannot do myself is upload the terrain meshes, Big deal. Whenever I want that (which is very, very rare), I just ask, and they do it for me. Speaking of doing it for me, I wouldn't have it any other way any more. It's a public secret that LL pretty much ignores all Estate support requests, unless you own upward of 30 sims. Yet, with my Landlord, they say jump, and Linden asks, How high? And they maintain extensive, regularly updated blacklists (with know griefers on it). And they never interfere with the operation of my sim, ever. Theoretically, Anshe Chung et al. could go bankrupt, I suppose. But, way I figure this, by the time that happens, SL itself will have died. Oh yeah, and I don't have to pay the Lindens the $1,000 RL bucks.

Qie Niangao wrote: kiramanell wrote: Darkness Anubis wrote: I also think premium in order to buy land needs to go. Anyone should be able to buy land. Many more people would happily own land if they didn't also need to have a premium act. BTW before free accounts existed there was a one time $9.95 act available and they COULD own land. It went away with the advent of free acts. Premium to buy land?!? I never heard of this. Must be crappy mainland then. I've been renting my sim from a reputable Anshe Chung subsidiary for years; and, while I'm premium, you don't need to be. In fact, I often think of just letting go of Premium: judging by their looks, seems the free house you get pre-dates the prim-era even, and they're non-mod to boot. And you're not even allowed to put a skybox on you premium land. You appear to be confusing Mainland with Linden Homes, both of which require Premium membership. Where did you get that from?! LOL. All I was saying is, that you don't need to be Premium in order to rent land, and that the other reason to be Premium (the free home) isn't really worth it, either.

Darkness Anubis wrote: Oh I know quite well what the rates are like on the Market Buy on Lindex and I agree never use it. I know many people who simply prefer the convienience of buying with cash on the Marketplace. They don't care that the rate that they are getting is ridiculous. They get their shiny now. Same reason some people still use that little 'Buy L$" button on the viewer. It is fast, simple and convienient. That rate is pretty abyssmal as well. And, pray-tell, what method do *you* use then to buy Lindens, if not using the "Buy L$" button?! I justy double-checked, and all website methods of buying Lindens lead to the same page. Is inworld buying cheaper perhaps?

Darkness Anubis wrote: I also think premium in order to buy land needs to go. Anyone should be able to buy land. Many more people would happily own land if they didn't also need to have a premium act. BTW before free accounts existed there was a one time $9.95 act available and they COULD own land. It went away with the advent of free acts. Premium to buy land?!? I never heard of this. Must be crappy mainland then. I've been renting my sim from a reputable Anshe Chung subsidiary for years; and, while I'm premium, you don't need to be. In fact, I often think of just letting go of Premium: judging by their looks, seems the free house you get pre-dates the prim-era even, and they're non-mod to boot. And you're not even allowed to put a skybox on you premium land.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: When I state an opinion, I generally preface it with "I think", "It seems to me", etc. You don't do that. You make statements like... Actually, once you're seeing the assorted "I think" qualifiers applied over time, they start to annoy for the faux appeasers that they really are. My favorite Gunnery Chief, Ashley Williams, nailed it when she spoke: Why is it whenever someone says "with all due respect", what they really mean is "kiss my *ss"? Sometimes people foregoing on the charade, and just plainly voicing their opinion, can be quite refreshing. After all, one should be secure enough about oneself to realize that what the other says is, without them confirming it, just their opinion, right?

Jo Yardley wrote: Second Life goes mobile! http://joyardley.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/slgo/ Hmm, $10 for 1 month, or $25 for 10 hours?! Whatever shall I do?! ;P Seriously, staying online 24/7, for the entire month, I'd pay about $30 for *that* (like 3x as much as regular SL). But the latter for just less than half day?! Thanks, but no thanks!

madjim wrote: Coby Foden wrote: kiramanell wrote: Nevertheless I recall Ebbe saying TPV's would be a thing of the past. Unfortunately your memory circuits appear to have a malfunction. :smileysad: Please re-read carefully what Ebbe actually has said. :matte-motes-smile: He said that initially there would be no TPVs in SL V2. Father "He neglected to add whether LL would allow any TPVs at any future time" Jim Yes. And sometimes you have to read between the lines a bit. One of the Lindens (Oz?) had already said, earlier, that, as far as LL was concerned, TPV's were a mistake, business-wise. So, I read 'initially no TPVs' as a polite way of him saying they're done with TPV's.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Sorry, but the MP 5% commission has zero to do with inworld sales dropping off.. Inworld search sucking donkey balls would be that reason. Finding anything using the search feature inworld sucks. At least on the MP you can narrow by category. Any sim, store, or profile with a certain keyword pops using the inworld search. I would happily pay 10 -15% "tax" on my sold goods. And yes, it would be the merchant paying that tax. Just like in the real world, the merchant pays the tax to the government. In this case LL. Sorry, but you're chasing a straw man. Nobody claims the 5% commission is the reason for inworld sales dropping off. I *did*, however, say, that since Linden wanted a piece of every action, they started offering 'actionable' MP sales (that can be disputed with a tangible transaction ID). And thus, as a result, when ppl have a choice between shopping safely via MP, or are totally left on the goodwill of the inworld vendor, many people prefer to buy via marketplace nowadays.

Qie Niangao wrote: kiramanell wrote: So, giving content creators a freebie, as it were, whilst taxing the consumer heftily, that may not work out as favorably as he may think. No. Content creators do not consider a higher commission on their sales to be a "freebie" -- especially not compared to land costs, which is borne disproportionately by "residential" not "commercial" landowners. (In the past, that balance of land use was very different, with most land owned by stores and venues. Now in-world sales are much less important, even for the relatively few businesses that even bother to have in-world stores.) I don't disagree on any particular point. It's just that Ebbe seem to suggest content creators would be the preferred customers in Matrix 2.0, is all. Yup, MP (with 'actionable' sales) has dealt a significant blow to inworld sales. Simply because LL was too greedy, and wanted a piece of everyone's action. If Ebbe has any common sense, he won't make the same mistake twice, and realize that sellers having to give up entire sims (because of less inworld sales) hurts them too.

Jo Yardley wrote: SL is all about entertainment and joy. Just because in a few years probably something comes along to replace TV's completely, are you going to throw your current tv away and stop watching it completey? No. A more apt analogy would be, If you would know that, come next week, 4K TV's started replacing all current TV's. would you still buy that new HD TV tomorrow? Or would you, like any other sane person, just delay your purchase until next week? You may not like that reality (nor do I, for that matter), but you can nonetheless expect a significant drop in sales (especially once the dreaded date draws neigh).

Phil Deakins wrote: She's not very clued up, is she? The SL platform was never open source. Only the viewer was. So it's hardly a surprise that the new platform will also not be open source. Nevertheless I recall Ebbe saying TPV's would be a thing of the past.