Jump to content

Cain Maven

Resident
  • Content Count

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

165 Excellent

1 Follower

About Cain Maven

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

282 profile views
  1. After careful consideration, I have decided not to freak out just yet. Yes, news like this is always unsettling. The History of Mergers and Acquisitions is a thick volume full of tragic tales -- and this could of course turn into one of them. Yet, this feels a little different. Waterfield seems to favor long term ownership over hit-and-run leveraged buyouts. That could turn out not to be true, but what are the assets that that could potentially be stripped and sold? A bunch of "previously owned" servers in a colo somewhere. A ton of user created content, the vast majority of which is
  2. Yeah, maybe it could go on their profile 🙂
  3. A feature that makes disclosure of the name change history optional would appear to meet that standard.
  4. I'm as strong an advocate for privacy as anyone -- I just don't see how this is sensitive information. If someone uses a display name you can still see their user name, and that doesn't seem to be an issue? But ok. How about a feature that allows users to decide if their name change history is public?
  5. Sure, I have already written a script to check previous names vs. current ones. But I still think this might be fertile ground for confusion in many cases. Why do you feel that name change history is sensitive and should be protected?
  6. I really think there should be an option for viewing a user's name change history. Without it, I suspect there will be a lot of unnecessary confusion. Merchants may have a harder time providing customer support, for example. And why wouldn't you have that option? It's not like name changes are deep and dark secrets, is it now?
  7. I think the plan is to make Premium (and the upcoming Premium Plus) more attractive. Again, the idea is to reduce the dependency on tier and hopefully be able to lower the cost for residents in the future.
  8. I think it's another attempt to slowly shift the SL economy away from being so dependent on tier revenue. A number of other recent changes have had the same goal: increased checkout fees, increased Marketplace commissions, etc. If the long term effect of all these changes is that land becomes affordable to more residents, I think it's a Good Thing.
  9. That is so true! SL has a steep learning curve, and merchants end up doing a lot of explaining of the basics -- something that really should be a Lab job. But if we decline to help customers with these basics, we are told we provide poor customer support
  10. I really hope so too, but I'm not optimistic. They'd have to find an alternate source for the roughly $ 1.5 million that this fee increase represents. (2.5% of $60 mill.) Currently, they don't have many options except Marketplace and Premium subscriptions -- unless they get creative...
  11. So I guess speaking up does matter sometimes. The Lab has decided not to cut the group count for Basic memberships after all
  12. I'm in favor, as long as they get to keep their inventories. And one year may be on the short side, especially if you're repossessing their land. But those are details -- if this has the potential of improving performance for all of us, I say go for it.
  13. Isn't it implied which way a vector goes? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
×
×
  • Create New...