Dresden

SPIRITUALxCOUNSEL wrote: PLEASE DONT REPLY TO THIS THREAD Okay, I won't ...Doh!!! ...Dres

Firstly. you need to get rid of the template layers, so that only the tattoo itself is visible. Then. I suggest you create an alpha channel which matches it, put in a completely black background (in order to eliminate the white "halo" effect) and save it as a targa. This link might be helpful... Alpha Channels with No White Halo ...Dres

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Exactly, and love is a stranger in an open car. ...Dres

joeychukc wrote: I have used the lcoal textures for my building. But when I log out and re log in, all the local textures are gone. What could I do? Local textures are meant as a means to preview what a texture would look like once it's uploaded and applied inworld. In order to apply textures that will endure you have to upload them, which costs 10L. Also, only you can see the local textures you've applied because they display directly from your hard drive since they haven't been uploaded to the server yet, which must be done in order for anyone else to see them. ...Dres

I think I'll respond to this bit by bit. Darrius Gothly wrote: For example, your Profile Picture (here in the flogs) is a bit edgy for me. It's decidedly racy, but not overly so. However it's in a place where the norm should be totally G-Rated without a hint of sexuality or "forbidden fruits". Yet there it is .. and for what reason? Because it expresses who you are! Firstly, I must commend you for being the very first person to bring up my forum badge within a context where it somewhat makes sense to do so. I say somewhat, simply because your OP was specifically about bits showing through. If my bits were showing through, I would fully expect to be reprimanded because of it. As it is, there is nothing the least bit not g-rated about my pic nor does it hint at any sort of sexuality whatsoever. It's not my fault (or intention) that you or anyone else would see a guy without a shirt on and automatically think in terms of "forbidden fruits". Darrius Gothly wrote: Fashions .. and especially intimate fashions .. are that odd category of product that "good folks" do not EVER buy. (But they will sneak back around and pick up a few when no one is looking.) It's about image, perception and public reputation. It's about how we think others see us. And that's where it gets REALLY complicated. I don't find it complicated in the least. There's nothing stopping anyone with the ability to shop for mature content from switching to a mature shopping experience when and only when they choose to do so; then switch back to general once they're done. Darrius Gothly wrote: The intimate fashions of which I speak are no doubt sold to only adults (or kids without a clue). A responsible adult would see what it is, recognize it for its purpose .. and then make a private decision on whether to purchase or not. But those with a bent toward inflicting their opinions on the rest of the world will see an image that is racy, a garment for which the purpose is clear but unstated .. and raise holy heck in adamant protest. I would expect those sort of Puritanical individuals to be much more unsettled by a merchant that attempted to unscrupulously sell mature content as g-rated by graying out the naughty bits, than I would one with said content placed at an appropriate level of maturity, showing the product exactly as it's meant to be. Darrius Gothly wrote: I do agree, my "solution" (suggestion?) would allow Merchants to walk even closer to the edge. But in all honesty I think that most would use it to help prevent future issues ... even if they keep their products listed as Mature Only. It's one of those "public grace" habits that (IMO) makes a Merchant more popular .. and builds a solid customer base. Obviously it would behoove merchants to display their mature content with some semblance of class and decorum. But we're not talking about pornographic pictures here... we're talking about a bit of see-thru clothing. I simply believe that merchants have enough to deal with without having to bend over backwards trying to appease some idiots who might be prone to becoming outraged over seeing mature content when they set themselves up to see mature content. ...Dres

Sassy Romano wrote: Not in Oxford English dictionary and I know it means a performer but it remains a made up misused word now touted inappropriately in tech circles because someone somewhere thought it sounded neat. Which is exactly how new words or new meanings for old words come into existence. Language is fluid. ...Dres

Darrius Gothly wrote: Dresden wrote: Darrius Gothly wrote: I haven't really dug into this .. it's just a wild idea borne from looking at a few of the products featured on the SLM. But it seems to me that what is needed is a new type of skin for models to wear. Instead of being ultra-realistic like skins tend to be, it would be bland, almost featureless, very much like a stylized and minimalized store manikin. Part of the problem with advertising the more intimate items is .. all the "bits" show through. But with a clearly stylistic model to drape the product on, you can still display the final result without walking across lines of decency that some folks are picky about. Just an idea ... shoot it or praise it as you wish. I do not sell the type of intimate (apparently see-thru) apparel of which you speak, but if I did, I might consider the showing through of "bits" as their main selling point. Nor do I believe those shopping for such intimacies would run screaming from their monitors when faced with an exposed "bit" or three. I assume LL has set in place the ability to choose differing maturity levels when searching through Marketplace for just the type of person that would. ...Dres I'm not the squeamish type either, but I can understand the POV that others who ARE squeamish would take. A lot of folks set their basic maturity rating to "G", thus a lot of Merchants do everything they can to get their listings also G-rated. After successfully filtering the description and other text to remove "naughty" words, they can set it to "G" .. and so they do. But there is no automatic "this picture is not quite G-rated" filter for listings. It depends on someone spotting it, reporting it .. and LL taking action against the item. But even worse is the "poison pen" follow-up behavior that a lot of very strict folks employ. As Merchants we all know the pain of being the recipient of a targeted attack. It's no fun, it has no useful purpose .. and it happens all too often in SL. In an effort to avoid such fall-out, I was thinking a pro-active approach would make more sense. Using a model with appropriately fuzzed features and "bits" would allow a proper listing in the G-rated maturity setting .. but for decidedly mature products. (Up to a point of course...) Much the same way that an "Adult Novelty" store in a mall will use faked cutouts or non-descript mannequins to display merchandise that would be far too risque on a realistic human form. It really wasn't a comment on the state of products, their maturity settings or any single maker/product in specific. It was more an idea of a way to remove any "issues" that might wrongly and inappropriately develop when one's toes are on the line. Oh well in that case... I find your suggested solution to this issue more problematic than that which it purports to resolve. What you're actually suggesting is a way in which sellers of mature content could sell that mature content to those who either choose not or are not allowed to see it. The only reason why an adult novelty shop in RL can get away with such a thing is because they're manned by actual employees capable of determining to whom it would or wouldn't be appropriate to sell. We don't have that ability here, which is why such maturity levels have been put in place. As far as I'm concerned, any merchant trying to sell mature items as g-rated content should be reported and face the negative ramifications of doing so. ...Dres

Darrius Gothly wrote: I haven't really dug into this .. it's just a wild idea borne from looking at a few of the products featured on the SLM. But it seems to me that what is needed is a new type of skin for models to wear. Instead of being ultra-realistic like skins tend to be, it would be bland, almost featureless, very much like a stylized and minimalized store manikin. Part of the problem with advertising the more intimate items is .. all the "bits" show through. But with a clearly stylistic model to drape the product on, you can still display the final result without walking across lines of decency that some folks are picky about. Just an idea ... shoot it or praise it as you wish. I do not sell the type of intimate (apparently see-thru) apparel of which you speak, but if I did, I might consider the showing through of "bits" as their main selling point. Nor do I believe those shopping for such intimacies would run screaming from their monitors when faced with an exposed "bit" or three. I assume LL has set in place the ability to choose differing maturity levels when searching through Marketplace for just the type of person that would. ...Dres

Pamela Galli wrote: Good, because if I ban someone I want to ban the person behind the avatar (and his roommate, little brother, and anyone who lives on the same street). Dammit! My little sister is sweet as can be... I'm the a-hole. ...Dres

What would give you that impression? IPs are fairly easy to get and land owners can ban you for pretty much any reason they wish. If I remember correctly, the issue with Redzone was that they created lists of possible alts, which LL decided violated their customers' privacy. (And wasn't very accurate to begin with.) ...Dres

But what would a pig wood if a pig could wood? ...Dres

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Now for "real democracy".....just NO. That's a terrible idea. Democracy is mob rule. You can't seriously want that?! That means the villagers rally with pitch-forks and torches. It means rule by rabble. We in the USA created a Republic so we wouldn't have mob rule. Sheesh. I have three pitchforks (two short handle hay, one long handle spading) and three torches (one oxy-acetylene, one propane, one kerosene). Does that mean I get six votes? Careful, Maddy... running a race with that many pointed and flaming objects might be just a little bit dangerous. ...Dres

Looks to me like those pants were made to hang that low, which could very well be the case with any others which you've tried on and had the same issue. I don't have a Slink body, so I have no idea what's on the market for them. It does seem strange that so many pants are being made for it that are what I'd call extra-low-rise, so perhaps there is something else going on. One thing about male mesh bodies is that there's simply not going to be much from which to choose on the market as designers of female clothing are much more plentiful. Also, a lot of designers rely upon full perm mesh creators to supply them with the mesh with which they create a particular article of clothing. Therefore, a lot of clothing is the exact same mesh just textured differently. There simply isn't enough incentive for designers to create as much original mesh clothing as there is for female clothing. This is always the case, but when you use a mesh body you're reducing your chances of finding something original substantially. So, yeah... it's going to be harder to outfit a male, mesh-bodied avatar decently. Persistence is key. ...Dres

Lori Paramour wrote: Provided that the hundreds of thousands of "Syrian" refugees don;t turn out to be more than 10-15% ISIS and start a major civil war withing the US and Uncle Barry doesn't declare Marshal Law ans suspend the elections: The -3%er no chance Fiorina will go Bush will go Trump will go and 85% of his supporters will go to Cruz Carson will go and 60-70% of his supporters will go to Cruz Cruz and Rubio head to head in debates, Rubio loses. Cruz grudgingly gets nomination. Hillary get's indicted but fix in in and DOJ won;t take it to trail. Career FBI investigators get pissed and leak all the evidence. DNC forced to turn to Biden. Biden and Sanders a toss up for the whackadoodle primary voters. Sanders squeaks by and the DNC are left with no choice Head to head debate between Sanders and Cruz. Cruz kills him and Sanders sounds just like what he is, a far left crack pot that should be in a loony bin on thorazine. Sanders scares the hell out of the Republican and independent voters and they turn out en-masse. Cruz is next president FYI: I am a PhD Candidate in Political Science and an Associate Professor of Political Science at an Eastern US College. Which has a very well known political think tank for which I work as an analyist. Both of which shall remain un-named. Be happy to provide further updates as the situation warrants it You must have a fascinating second life considering how very fanciful is your imagination. ...Dres

I thought Trump already was here... perhaps because he just seems to be everywhere lately. ...Dres

Niramyth is currently working on a "normal size body" (link) and, if the quality and ease of use of their current body remains consistent with their next one, I'll be all over it like étouffée on rice. ...Dres

Since I addressed the problematic nature of the first half of your original post in the first reply I posted here, I'll only address this part now... LadySevda wrote: Another thing i would like to address is the owners of the group. when a person creates a group they should be the only owner of the group or allow the creator to remove those he or she has put as owner. This was an issue for me in the past and i thought was a bit unfair as i had a group stolen from me because of this reason. This should never have been an issue for you. LL should never be forced to expend the manpower required to clean up situations created by nothing else but the bad judgement of one of their customers. There is absolutely no reason why group ownership capabilities should be hindered because you or anyone else was too stupid to not hand over ownership to someone untrustworthy. The only person to whom I've ever given ownership of one of my groups was my RL sister... and only because I knew I could creep up upon her in the middle of the night, wrap a plastic bag around her head and be done with it (actually, she's way too strong for me to be able to do that to her... I know... I've tried). ...Dres (actually, I lied... I never tried... I ain't that stupid.)

Qie Niangao wrote: Bobbie Faulds wrote: You can't change the name of a group easly because of the name being attached to a UUID. That would make it easier, actually, if nothing referred to the name directly but only retrieved it from some group record in the sky, indexed by UUID (as one would expect). There must be something that instead depends on the name itself. I say that because, way back when the Lab was tightening up their trademarks in-world, we tried to migrate a very prominent "Second Life" group to a non-infringing name. This took a very long time but was eventually approved from on-high, and got done, with the understanding that heaven and earth had just been moved and never, ever, to ask for something so difficult again. (I can't remember the details anymore, but I vaguely recall that we were asked how much we used some specific group feature that would have made its name even more difficult or even impossible to change.) Of course it can be done, but why would anyone with sound reasoning expect LL to do it? LL charges us to create groups... why would they ever want to simply rename groups when doing so would deny them the income, however minimal, they get by forcing us to create a new group should we want a new name? Imagine being a member of a group named "Log Cabin Aficionados" one day, then the next, being a member of "PedoPapa Paradise"... how lovely would that be? Yes, LL will change names of groups from time to time, when there are lots of members in the group and the group owner can convince LL of the benefit in doing so (such as the Phoenix Viewer Support Group being renamed the Firestorm Viewer Support Group). But being able to do this automatically, without careful consideration, would be highly detrimental to both LL and SL users in general. ...Dres

Damn, I thought this was going to be the beginning of a Tina Tina Cheneuse sketch. ...Dres *obviously forgot this was SL, not SNL*

KarenMichelle Lane wrote: Dresden wrote: KarenMichelle Lane wrote: I totally agree 'cept for the notion that there are No Fat Poltergeists! I experienced a [walking] poltergeist that took out the library shelving contents on both sides at once as it made its way to its destination beyiond the far wall. I never want to experience that again. -- [Take Away from that Experiece] Don't tell me the Supernatural Isn't! You misunderstand (another explanation for why people sometimes become needlessly offended)... I was merely stating my size preference in ghostly apparitions. ...Dres Giggles, Well I was just offended with the memory of THAT poltergeist that your sign-off triggered for me.....oh the shame. But that said, I don't mind a man built for Comfort & Joy! Please accept my humblest apology for offending your delicate sensibilities. ...Dres (Your idea of a man built for comfort and joy might differ significantly from my own.)

Canoro Philipp wrote: the constant correctors are the ones who create political correctness. they point out that this is said wrong, this other thing is not said in the most perfect way, even little details that have nothing to do with the topic, like a typo, or they attack a minor part of the subject and make a scandal over it, a set of words that could be positioned in a better way becomes the discussion instead of the main idea... the constant desire to correct others take out the different possibilities, humor is not an option anymore because it may be offensive to people of certain cultures, the choices of expression gets more limited until political correctness is the only valid way. the self teaching method of political correctness drives the community to only express itself in the less offensive way, to evade retaliation from the correctors. creativity gets limited, humor becomes rare, and many side with the correctors, the winning team. I believe you're right, Canoro. Political correctness does have a part to play in this. But, I don't believe that political correctness is inherently a bad thing. I think it actually comes from a place of compassion. It's when it's used as a weapon that it becomes problematic. Far too often the demand for someone to be political correct is used as a tactic to silence and/or villify that person. It should really only be used to educate them as to the plight of those who might be offended, ideally with a logical explanation of why that might occur. Personally, I have no problem with someone pointing out to me that a word or phrase I've used could be considered inappropriate by some, because it's simply not my intention to offend any one person or segment of society due to my own ignorance of the matter. If I'm going to offend someone, I want it to do it purposely. ...Dres

KarenMichelle Lane wrote: I totally agree 'cept for the notion that there are No Fat Poltergeists! I experienced a [walking] poltergeist that took out the library shelving contents on both sides at once as it made its way to its destination beyiond the far wall. I never want to experience that again. -- [Take Away from that Experiece] Don't tell me the Supernatural Isn't! You misunderstand (another explanation for why people sometimes become needlessly offended)... I was merely stating my size preference in ghostly apparitions. ...Dres

KarenMichelle Lane wrote: As you have undoubtedly observed [you being a keen observer of the obvious in all things] there are a number of individuals out here and out there who for no other reason are just waiting to be insulted. This I agree with entirely. This... KarenMichelle Lane then wrote: This stems from a nonsensical belief by so many that they are entitled to respect. ...makes sense, but I believe there's more to it. There are those who suffer from the delusion that because a statement is a person's opinion, then that statement can't be wrong. As if an illogical opinion deserves the same respect as a logical one, making it disrespectful to call into question their opinion's logic. Because they believe their own opinion, it's actually their beliefs that are disrespected. These are the same sort of people who erroneously believe that their beliefs are an inherent part of who they are... therefore, questioning their opinion disrespects not just their beliefs but themselves as well. It's quite twisted. Also, I see this sort of self-victimization as an underhanded tactic used by people who can't cogently argue whatever usually idiotic point upon which they were called out. Getting all bent out of shape and calling people rude or disrespectful or a bully or a troll for something as simple as stating a differing opinion or pointing out the logical fallacies in theirs is the only way they can handle the situation without letting themselves acknowledge their own shortcomings... regardless of how glaringly obvious they are to anyone else. ...Dres

Perrie Juran wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: KarenMichelle Lane wrote: ....secretly adds Qie to the Hidden but all powerful Rank of Instigator ... hands Qie a bunch of Oreos and a bottle of root-beer. Rank has it privileges. Pleaze don't channel Sus. Pretty please! Though Sus probably would have eaten the OP for an early morning snack. And then would've promptly died, considering the OP's level of toxicity. ..Dres

Phoebe Avro wrote: I would like to apologize to eveyone for my post, I have deleted, It was very stupid of me I don't know what I was thinking Well this answers my question. ...Dres