Theresa Tennyson

January 31

1 hour ago, Raspberry Crystal said:

I can't help thinking that sushi chef looks more benign than advertised.

Don't be so sure. The literal translation of what he's saying is, "As for you, if it's sushi, IT DOES NOT EXIST." At least he's saying it politely.

January 30

On 1/29/2024 at 9:17 AM, Charalyne Blackwood said:

With the popularity of curvier bodies, it should have been optional to dial in the enhanced hips and thighs. I've worked too hard for a slender semi athletic shape with Lara to be made to take several steps backward. This isn't fat shaming, this is protesting my options being dictated to me. Lara is an excellent body for photography (largely due to the ability to pose the feet individually) and I've used it for a few years now. I've tried the Legacy SE body, and while it has many pluses i can't pose the feet individually. At least Slink made the HG body an option.

Then keep using Lara 5.3. Nobody's "dictating" a blessed thing. If the fact that a lot of clothing makers are now rigging for LaraX is "dictating" then they also "dictated" that Slink Hourglass got a lot more support than Slink Physique Original after a while.

January 29

50 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

If it's the case that llVehicles are not LI limited, one solution would be to simply put an LI cap on the park and explore feature. Say something like 32LI, which seems to be around the top end of where mesh vehicles hover these days.

SOMEBODY's in for a surprise...

January 29

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

If I understand the info in the thread, that may be accomplished today by leaving "object entry off" (vehicles can still pass), and having "autoreturn" set to an appropriate time. Is that correct?

No; if object entry is off the vehicle is returned instantly. You'll need "object entry" on and the auto-return timer set to what you think is a reasonable time.

January 29

3 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

To be clear on my personal position:-

I think Zalificent or anyone else who is a land owner should be able to prevent people driving onto their parcel if they don't want people driving onto their parcel. That's totally reasonable.

I can totally understand why you wouldn't want people driving onto your lawn. I don't think that vehicle drivers should be entitled to drive over peoples private property.

What I want is features for the land owners who do want people to be able to park and shop. I think land owners should be at liberty to decide if people can park and explore in their sim.

I also want public rights of way such as roads and waterways to allow temporary parking within reason. I also want to be able to sail big ships out on the ocean, and walk around on them freely. I think that would be pretty cool, and open up new types of roleplay on the sea that was not previously possible.

My aim by starting this thread was to put my desires through the fires of hell that is the forum and see what is really holding SL back from having these abilities. It's my hope that by starting to build a bigger picture that I can eventually put forward a more bullet proof proposal that's less likely to get shot down and more likely that everyone will find at least somewhat agreeable.

Nothing. It already has, depending on how object-entry and auto-return are set. In Satori, where I spend a lot of my time, I've stopped temporarily on roads often. My "family businesses" often have parking lots that are set for exactly what you want.

January 29

1 hour ago, Extrude Ragu said:

Is it actually possible to drive vehicles right now into a parcel that doesn't have object entry on? that sounds counter intuitive

Yes, as long as the avatar is seated on it.

January 29

3 hours ago, Extrude Ragu said:

So do you think the issue that holds us back here is the way the simulator treats personal vehicles? Eg. Because the vehicle counts towards LI, it places an unfair burden on land owners.

What if we could control what counts towards LI? or have a budget for personal vehicles?

Imagine that we can change anything about how the underlying SL system works, what would you change to make it work better, for everybody?

Treat a "parked/anchored" vehicle as an avatar attachment. If we're making changes, increase the distance the avatar can move away from the "anchored" attachment with the tradeoff that the attachment won't be allowed to move/be moved while anchored and it can't be anchored on a parcel that doesn't allow object entry.

January 29

10 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

Most of the land that llVehicles typically traverse over is not held by land owners, but rather on public roads and waterways held by LL themselves. Do you think it's a 'reasonable' experience to be unable to stand on a boat in the sea? Unable to park at the side of the road and go into a shop?

Yes. Now read the description of "action mode" for this car:

https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/EXP-Super-80-Resizable-Sportscar-with-Walking-Mode/24042976

January 29

8 hours ago, Extrude Ragu said:

You stand from your boat to take in the view from the deck. The boat disappears. You sink to the bottom of the ocean and drown.

You park your car to get out and see something cool. Your car disappears. Nowhere near to Rez. You're now stranded.

These are some of my experiences of vehicle exploration in SecondLife. Do you have similar experiences?

I think that the sim should remember the last vehicle we drove, and so long as we stayed in the same parcel or less than a certain distance away it wouldn't get auto-returned. But it'd just be for whatever vehicle you were in last, so you couldn't keep doing it for hundreds of vehicles.

I think with all that sailing water it would be great to pull up in a big old cruise boat and stand up, walk around on the deck and enjoy the view. I want to park my car and go shopping, and my car *shock* still be there when I get back!

If you got to choose how vehicle auto-return worked, how would you change vehicle auto-return? How far away would you like to be able to walk from your vehicle, before the sim considered the vehicle abandoned? Other thoughts?

Once you stand from a vehicle it stops being a vehicle and becomes an object on the land. Just as I think it's unreasonable for landowners to take extreme measures against vehicle entry, I think it would be unreasonable for a vehicle owner to request special status for their parked vehicle.

January 25

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

Is a "codswallop" like a Rubberhead?

Replacement for "flapdoodle." Because I used "flapdoodle with a very, very different* forum poster a few years ago so I retired it.

*Like EXTRA different. Really.

January 25

5 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Including you it seems, LL say they are legal, you keep trying to prove they are not, and failing.

You admit you don't make the rules, LL do, the rules LL made say "you LOSE".

When did they say that? Even using the "codswallop" definition of "legal", mind you.

January 25

3 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Doesn't "illegal" mean some RL law is broken?

Can Linden Lab have us put in RL jail?

Or, is "against the TOS" actually meant?

This is SOO confusing!

Why can't people just say what they mean?!? I guess the temptation to change words to reinforce hyperbole is just too great.

Edited it. Accidentally inhaled some of the codswallop for a second.

January 25

5 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

If you agree that zero second orbs are NOT illegal, then your "should = must" fail-argument has just been shot down on flames by...

You.

Thanks for conceding defeat in this fight.

I also didn't say they weren't illegal*. I have no authority, so my opinion as to whether or not something is allowed by those in authority is meaningless. That's a concept that a lot of people seem to have trouble with.

*Actually, of course they're not "illegal", because they don't violate any real-world laws.

January 25

Just now, Zalificent Corvinus said:

And yet, your fraudulent claims of an "indirect directive" have NOT become a "direct directive" despite YEARS of ranting and screaming and whining by people who want to outlaw privacy.

They became a direct directive on Bellisseria less than a month after the post I quoted.

January 25

51 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

You know, I'm pretty sure Terry has tried this tack several times before in other threads, and lost the argument EVERY SINGLE TIME,

because zero second orbs are NOT against the real rules, that apply on Mainland.

When did I ever say that they weren't?

January 25

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

What are you suggesting? (intentional wordplay intended)

For example: Authority figures are terrible at being "direct", or that individuals will ignore directives unless they are direct? (Ack, I did it again.)

If individuals ignore indirect directives, then they become direct.

January 25

19 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

The words ‘should’ and ‘must’ have entirely different meanings and can’t be used synonymously or interchangeably.

You MUST agree to the ToS before joining not you SHOULD. LL is well aware of the meaning of words.

https://www.lagressiere.com/legal-definition-of-should-understanding-the-legal-implications/

The legal definition of « should » in a contract implies an obligation or duty, but with some flexibility. It is not as stringent as « must » or « shall », but it still conveys a sense of expectation and responsibility.

January 25

50 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Oops, missed that part and why many won't move to Belli.

You can post all kinds of things from the knowledge base but until you can show us where it says We MUST allow a reasonable time, then your point is moot.

The whole situation has been repeated so many times that I skipped my "triple-dare" line, which is:

On 4/2/2019 at 6:55 PM, Theresa Tennyson said:

Another aspect of reality is that if someone in authority "suggests" that you do/not do something and your reply is, "Well, you didn't say I must so who cares?" it's very likely that you'll find the same authority figure handing down a very clear rule - in no uncertain terms - that's often quite a bit more draconian than the "suggestion."

January 25

20 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

You mean when you posted a link to some law site defining criminal trespass, claiming it supported your nonsense, without ACTUALLY bothering to read it, and I quoted it back at you section by section, refuting your nonsense.

What exactly did I claim? And a lot of your "refutations" were based on how people could see things that were invisible.

January 25

4 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Managing other Residents on your land

You can exercise your rights as a Second Life landowner by restricting access to your property.

Yep, it's about that time. Now here's where I typically post this from the same Knowledge Base article:

Script Use

You can use scripted objects to enhance your land ownership tools. Generally, such scripts should:

Provide adequate warning to the undesired Resident.
Only work within the property lines (this includes projectiles that cannot operate beyond the parcel boundaries).
Not be excessive in the removal of the unwanted Resident. Pushing an avatar off the property or teleporting them home is generally acceptable; intentionally applying a script to disrupt someone's Second Life connection or online status is not allowed.

Scripts or no scripts, you cannot use land ownership as a way to unfairly restrict another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms.

Now someone will post, "It says 'should', not 'must."

This whole argument was taking place literally days before Linden Lab removed ban lines and set up limitations on orbs in Bellisseria.

January 25

2 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

"My over-entitled airborne griefer trash friends are richer than you therefore I have a right to trespass" is not and never has been a valid argument.

As we've gone over before, there is no definition of "tresspassing" in Second Life. If you try to apply real-world laws you then wreck on issues of notice, intent, and airspace use.

January 25

7 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

it's more likely that the very small whining minority that wants to claim access to everything they don't even contribute a dime to, know there's no chance they will convince the paying mainlanders for letting them do what they want.

You have Belliseria for your travels.

I'd be willing to guess that the owners of the many airports on the Mainland pay a lot more tier than you do.

January 25

5 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

they are not paying to use the land of others, in your, and others reasoning, it would be fine you buy a car, i see it on the parking lot and take it for a ride.

Not if the owner of the parking lot shoots you for stepping onto their unmarked asphalt...

January 25

4 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

it's more likely that the very small whining minority that wants to claim access to everything they don't even contribute a dime to, know there's no chance they will convince the paying mainlanders for letting them do what they want.

You have Belliseria for your travels.

Speaking of "small minorities", whining or otherwise, there don't really seem to be that many Mainland owners who are trying to keep their land completely no-access either. From the forums, it appears to just be a handful of people, and most of them are in this thread already.

January 25

Just now, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Ohhhhh!

I see!

So what you are saying is, that it if ONE over-entitled anti-privacy griefer unilaterally decides that somebody's private home is "a recommended route", that makes it ok for all their anti-privacy griefer friends to grief the home owner, because over-entitled anti-privacy griefers are MORE important than mere home owners.

Yeah right.

Your failed argument has failed, again, as usual.

That wasn't the question. Does it answer the question you asked, which is why they were there?

Forums

Blogs

Knowledge Base

Posts posted by Theresa Tennyson

Managing other Residents on your land

Script Use

Linden Lab

Tilia

Second Life

Connect With Us

Partner With Us