Jennifer Boyle

I opened this thread because I wondered who might still wear system or prim skirts, and why. I guess it's good to know that people are interested in the forum archives.

Exactly.

Error

Sorry.

There are two areas in which it seems to me that the current system unnecessarily restricts and inconveniences users with no benefit to creators or anyone else. One is my inability to rename no-mod items. This is particularly irksome with texture-change mesh clothing. As an example, I may have shoes that have many choices of colors. I want to put on black, ones or red ones, etc., and not have to attach and fiddle with a HUD every time I wear them. If they are no-mod, the only way I can record the color of a copy is to create a separate folder for it. It would be more convenient if I could add "red" or "black" or whatever was appropriate to the name. An alternative would be for creators to not make things no-mod. I don't want to mess with the design of the shoes; I just want the convenience of renaming them. Why not have a "sub-perm" under the next-owner permissions like "may rename only?" Why shouldn't I have that? What would be the harm? The other is that no-transfer is absolute. Creators have a legitimate reason to want to prevent two accounts from using an item at the same time. They have no legitimate reason to want to prevent ownership from passing from one account to another. Imagine what RL would be like if no one could sell their house or car and no one could donate used clothing or books? Since the goods that we are considering are fragile digital files that can become unusable or even disappear for many reasons or for no apparent reason, backups are essential, so a user must be able to make copies. Creators are rightly unwilling for purchasers to be able to transfer something they bought while retaining a copy. But, why couldn't we have, instead of absolute no transfer, either "transfer and delete all copies" or, better, "transfer all copies" as the next-owner permission. This might require that a unique identifier field be added to properties; the unique identifier would never change, once assigned. A single copy of the item could always be transferred without restriction by the creator. What would be wrong with such a change?

Why would I assume that, when everyone is welcome to come into my home? Why shouldn't I charitably assume that everyone else welcomes strangers, just as I do?

Generosity is morally superior to selfishness. Period. Selfishness isn't even the right word, because the person who carefully guards her house with a security orb gains noting; she only makes' others' lives worse while not making her own better. Maybe meanspiritedness is the right word? In any case, SL is quite different from RL in that visitors cannot damage your SL property and cannot harm the SL you, so there is no reason to keep them out other than that you just enjoy being meanspirited.

My point was that it is difficult. I welcome people who just wander in uninvited. Other posts in this thread make it clear that I'm not alone. I cannot be there most of the time to invite passersby in, even though they are very welcome. Others don't welcome strangers wandering in. How is an explorer to know the difference? As I said above, I'll put up a welcome sign. Let others put up signs saying what they welcome or don't welcome. What I wonder is this: If people don't welcome strangers wandering in, why do they leave you land open to the public? They can easily keep strangers out without any misunderstandings just by limiting access to a group or to named accounts. If that's what they want, why don't they just use the free, easy-to-use tools that come with land?

Considering that there is such diversity of feelings about this issue, from people like me who want people to enjoy their houses, to people who are offended if anyone ever wanders in, perhaps we, as a community, need to define some norms (etiquette?) for making the homeowner's wishes known to visitors. I used to have a sign welcoming people to use my house. After reading here, I think I'll put it back up. Perhaps those of you who don't want people wandering in should put up "keep out" signs. It's clear that, with many homeowners welcoming everyone to use their houses, and others not wanting anyone to, there is no norm for visitors to respect. So, let's all put up signs, and no one will have to guess or unintentionally transgress. In this situation where many homes are left open because the owners welcome visitors, I think it's just nasty to have a security orb eject people, and often ban them, when they received no warning that they wouldn't be welcome. No, a notification by the orb that I'll be banned in a few seconds if I don't leave doesn't count. Countless times, that has happened, and, despite my best efforts, I couldn't leave before the orb ejected me, and, often, banned me by name, which made it impossible for me to fly over the parcel for eternity. The owners of such orbs are @$$holes, IMHO.

I welcome them unless they behave obnoxiously, in which case I ban them. I want people to enjoy my house. Why not? It's not RL, where they can do actual damage. At worst, they'll leave stuff lying around, which I can return in less than a minute, and the need for that seldom occurs. I have met some interesting people that I first met when they wandered into my house.

I got an Epic account and looked for Party Royale, but it wasn't on offer. Creative something-or-other was, and, from the subtitle it looked like it might be what I was looking for, so I took a chance. It was a shooter with no social component, as far as I could tell. What did strike me was how easy it was to start in Fortnite, compared to SL. Please don't lecture me about all the ways that SL is superior to Fortnite---I know that.

I am as stupid as ever. I have looked and looked in Firestorm, and I can't find that. Where do I need to look?

Since this discussion started, I checked on an account of a friend who abruptly stopped logging in in August, 2014. I know it could be found in search a few years later, but it wasn't there today.

I've observed that accounts can still be found in search for a few years after they stop logging in, and then they can't. I presume that when they can't, it means the account is closed, which is probably a better term to use than deleted..

First, addressing your example; if the Catwa Clip account were closed, Catwa would still be a registered trademark (see http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4807:jm6pww.2.2), until the owner, Huda Abdi Hathal Alsulaili Alenzi, cancelled the registration or let it lapse, and it would still be infringement subject to legal action if someone sold the virtual goods listed in the registration under that name if the owner chose to pursue it. However, if the owner of the account wanted to prevent reuse of the name, all it would take is to keep the account open, which costs nothing more than logging in for a minute every couple of years. When I click on an account name for a defunct in the object properties, it brings up the profile, with no indication that the account is not current. It is also shown in lists of group members, but it can't be found in search. I still have the calling card in my inventory. Wonder why there's no indication of the status in the profile? Why not? As I wrote previously, IRL, we not only reuse names, but hundreds or thousands of people use the same one simultaneously, and it works fine. IRL, we understand that, unless names are unusual, they are unlikely to be unique, and we take that into account. In SL, so far, and probably forever, names have been unique, so we expect that. If they were reused, we'd adjust our expectations to approximate our RL expectations. And in SL, there are UUIDs, and rez days that would never be the same for two accounts with the same name. On another note, what is the rationale for using limited, rotating panels of last names? I think it's a source of frustration for people when they don't really like any of the names currently on offer. Why not offer a much larger pool, and replace one when the number of accounts using it reaches some limit? I visualize the new user starting to type and seeing a list of names contain the character string they have typed, that gets shorter each time they add a letter. Seems a lot more user-friendly to me. I don't know if it's still the same, but I remember the frustration associated with getting a first name. I'd type in my first, second, and 50th, choices, and it would say it wasn't available, but wouldn't give any information about what was. Commonly, sites that have a similar process tell users what similar names are available. Wonder why SL doesn't? Or maybe it does now?

Exactly. So, why wouldn't the OP be within her rights to appoint, instead of an agent with unlimited powers to act on her behalf, an agent with powers limited to logging on to her SL account and organizing her inventory? What other powers, whether it's to write checks on her bank account or take her dog to the vet, that the agent has should be of no concern to LL.

It is just stupid not to allow reuse of names that were used by deleted accounts. What could it hurt? I think LL made a major mistake by having our names be the same as our login IDs. Sure, login credentials must be unique, but there's no reason for names to be. I just searched whitepages.com for "Jennifer Boyle," and it found over 100. Guess what? It isn't a problem, even though IRL people deal in real money, have real bank accounts, have real credit card accounts, real contracts, etc. If it isn't a problem for people to have the same name IRL, where the stakes are far higher, it surely shouldn't be in SL. Am I wrong? If you think so, tell me why.

I wonder if LL's absolute prohibition of giving anyone else access would hold up in court if contested. If I grant someone a durable general power of attorney, they are empowered to act on my behalf in all matters with the same powers that I would have. My bank, my stockbroker, and everyone else must honor their instructions just as they would mine. They can't avoid that obligation just by writing something into their TOS. How can LL?

IMHO, you'd do well to look around for clothes you like before selecting a mesh body. Identify several stores that sell clothing that you like for prices you are willing to pay that is of the quality that you find acceptable. Note which bodies they sell clothing for. Then, select one of those. You can right click on mesh clothing and mesh bodies and click on "Object Profile" to find out the name of the article and who made it; I often do that when I see someone wearing something I think I'd like to have. Another thing to pay attention to is how well a brand of clothing fits. Some of my favorite brands consistently fit so well that I don't bother trying demos of their clothing. I don't think that there's much correlation between clothing price and quality. I wear Maitreya Lara exclusively. I chose it because it seemed to be the most popular and the one that the most clothing was available for. That still seems so. Most of the clothing in my favorite store is for Maitreya only. If it's important to you to duplicate the look of your system avatar, you might consider wearing the demo, making an identical twin alt, and standing on posing stands beside each other or even in exactly the same place, and adjust shape sliders to see how closely you can match the shape. This is tedious and time consuming. If you succeed, be sure to save the shape to use with the "real" body. Good luck, and WB!

I totally understand. I don't care much about the old chat logs because they would be so voluminous, but I would really like to have all my old photos back.

If "nearly all returners/newbs" make the same error, it isn't their error, but LL's. IMHO, the major reason that SL hasn't attracted more new users that became active, long-term users is the difficulty of learning what one needs to know to both have a nice avatar and operate in SL. There is a LOT to learn, and there is little help. Another barrier is that, now, the cost of a state-of -the-art avatar is significant. When I started in 2007, it cost me around $20 (L$5,000) to buy what I needed for a nice avatar and nice wardrobe, by the standards of the time. Now, a head costs L$5,000. Yes, out avatars are soooooooooo much better now, but the cost of having one that fits in with the cool kids is a barrier for someone who isn't sure if they will like it, or not. One example of things being complicated and there being little help: I have encountered multiple new residents who were frustrated because they didn't understand the difference between mesh and classic avatars. If I had Ebbe's job, I would prioritize making the new user experience much better than it is.

I don't know what you make. I'm writing this as though you make quality women's apparel and avatar components. With demos that quit working after two minutes, you are definitely losing sales---a lot of sales. If I went to a store, saw several items that I just loved, collected the demos, and took them home to try on, and the first one stopped working after two minutes, I would be so angry that I not only would not buy that product, but would delete all the demos and never again even consider buying from that store. Two hours would be fine. You may be thinking, "If I give them two hours, they will just use one demo for two hours and then use another for two hours, so I can't do that." You would be wrong. Some people would do what you fear, but they are not the people who would buy your products. You target market is people who are willing to pay for good quality. There is little overlap between them and people who are willing to take the trouble to replace a timed demo every two hours. You lose nothing when people who would never buy it anyway use you stuff for free. You do lose when people who would have otherwise bought it don't because of measures you took to prevent the other group's using it. This is nothing new. For as long as I can remember, SL merchants have been obsessed with preventing people's using their stuff for free, when they would be a lot better off being obsessed with giving people who are willing to pay a great experience.

Thanks for all the interesting and informative responses.

I learned about SL when it was in the news in 2006 because LL had been hacked and users' credit card data had been compromized. I was curious and signed up for an account.

The title says it all.