Josh Susanto

Is it just coincidence that it's now long enough to use as toilet paper?

"NO feature shall be added while ANY support ticket remains open." Is there anything unclear about this? Is there any reason to object to it? I know that something like this has been suggested before. But I'm not suggesting it as a "guideline". I'm suggesting that all LL employees be required to sign it as a contract addendum, and that anyone caught even trying to deploy new features while any support ticker remains open be terminated with prejudice. It should be the first thing listed in new employment contracts, and it should be posted on every wall, in letters as large as the wall will allow. It undeniably would have prevented the ongoing incident. And really, anyway, what could it hurt?

>I too am very surprised they continue to keep it open when there are so many messed up listings. I'm not. If they can't even show the sense to stop encouraging the migration from boxes to DD, they're not going to do anything less obvious until panic finally sets in, and then it will just be the wrong thing anyway.

>Came back from work and was hoping things had been fixed Why would you think that?

>.I wouldn't get fired, my QA team would for deeming it worthy. That angle basically works for me, too. I don't need to see the code to know that it's not doing what it's supposed to do. If I did, the rest of that argument would seem to be that LL just needs to publish the code so we can all see it and decide that the fact that it doesn't work doesn't matter. End users shouldn't even have to concern themselves with questions like whether to blame coders or blame QA. Nothing should be released that should even allow such a question to come up. Surely it is someone's job to make sure things don't get released that don't work. Someone. No?

>in-world activities would remain mostly what SL was intended for - social interaction. I'm not persuaded that it was intended mostly for social interaction, but only because I'm not persuaded that it was intended mostly for any one thing. I think we can agree, though, that it was definitely not intended mostly as a huge shopping mall, which is what it was becoming at one point.

>For just DD or both? I have not migrated to DD and my stuff all looks okay. Same here. But the bad service and "maintenance" downtime reduce total customer activity even for merchants with no discernable technical problems. And we were all jerked around by being told to migrate to DD anyway, regardless of whether we were too smart for that. So if you're irritated in spite of the fact that your boxes are working fine (as I am), I think we're somewhat entitled to it. Especially since it's just one more sign that LL, as a whole, is probably on its last legs due to ignoring mountains of impeccably clear and simple advice about how to turn things around.

>If it's related to this discussion I don't see why you shouldn't post the direct link to that post here, In fact, please do. You can tell the Lindens I pushed you into it, absolutely.

>It is not a criticism! I have read several of your posts with growing interest. Please accept my apology for misreading you. I assume you can see from my August/September posts why I might still be a little cranky and defensive. Yes?

There shouldn't be ANY deadline for box shutoff , because an important feature shouldn't be scheduled to be removed while there's no foreseeable date at which the thing with which it is to be replaced works at least almost well enough to replace it. Isn't that just basic operations logic? Did these people even go to school at some point? Moreover, a box shutoff date should never have been set because teh DD deployment date also shouldn't have been set yet. Deployment dates for new features, EVER shouldn't even be set until every single support ticket is closed. Otherwise, the utility deficit will only increase, due to the accumulation of bugs. It's simple math, no? Did these people get their diplomas out of Crackerjack boxes or what?

Your criticism might be easier for me to want apply if I had also happened to be wrong about much of anything so far. It's sort of interesting to me, though, that you're quicker to criticise me for telling people what's going to happen than you are to criticise them for not paying attention in spite of the fact that I've generally been very correct. What's in it for you to have people keep ignoring reliable warnings?

>In other words LL is being paid and the Merchant is not. In other words, they have been openly stealing for a week and they show no intention to stop. Isn't there some kind of law enforcement authority we should notify? Every day I don't drop the dime on LL, I feel more and more like an accessory.

Then how would they be able to justify keeping the money for listing enhancements?

I think trying to focus in-world is probably going to be a waste of all of your time. Since it's clear that no one can ever get fired for anything under Rodvik, it's sort of inevitable that when the marketplace finally gets shut down, the same people who made that happen will just be given more toys to break in other parts of the system. In fact, they'll probably be sent directly to positions where they can also make it necessary to eventually shut down all in-world commerce.

>I never imagined something like this could go so badly I did. In fact, I think I have a pretty good record at this point of imagining what can go wrong at LL, which you can see from my various contributions on this forum. If I thought anyone would read it undismissively, I might even be happy to start talking about the next couple of things to expect.

>The point is that these deadlines depend on "success metrics and merchant confidence levels" That was never the point. The point was that the box system, itself, leaves someone personally exposed to some kind of risk that might be more effectively mitigated by shutting down the box system sooner rather than later. Getting rid of the boxes will probably help get something swept under the rug before the wrong people see it (possibly to include the IRS, for example). Whoever pushed for the early box shutoff deadline is the first person I think should be investigated for the disappearing money in DD as well.

>BTW, 10 months ago, Brooke posted this, which should still apply Yes, except that I've already firmly established that Brooke has no problem lying to us.

I'm not leaving, but I'm not going to put in any extra effort at this point other than escalating my prices to meet demand price. I had kept most of my products at 9L as part of a long-term strategy, but since I can no longer in good faith consider SL to be a long-term user platform at all, I'm just trying to maximize revenues while there are still revenues.

But this is actually collective user error, I'm sure.

I feel like I'm in a Tim Burton movie where Rube Goldberg and Franz Kafka take control of an online virtual products market.

Need I point out, yet again, that the technical problem is incidental to the organizational problem?

>some hints would be ok, I'm afraid the list is long and will waste your time... The quickest thing would probably be just to skim all the threads to which I've contributed so far. There's some choice stuff in August and September. After that, I guess Malefactor Linden was too busy trying to get DD to almost work that he never much upgraded his box borking system, at least until 14 February when I guess he was able to squeeze something in after LL decided DD was done being prepared to deploy.

>Get a VIP cheapskate. I will. I just wanted to test the thing out a bit first.

>disaster is even growing bigger... But of course. That's what happens whenever Lindens rush to fix things they never bothered to test before forcing us to use them. Do you need a list of prior examples?

Well, those things probably can't ALL be true.