Phil Deakins

As is killing people for pleasure - sawing them up and roasting them just for the pleasure of it

I'm not aware that Alan Turing was called depraved. He was shamefully treated by this country though. But, again, you're trying to equate homosexuality with the things that are the topic of this thread, but you can't, because they are totally different. So you might as well get off that particular track. All it's doing is highlighting that you have no real points.

I don't care what other things were called depravity. It doesn't justify depravity. It just means that sometimes judgements were wrong, that's all. But not in this case. What you unsuccessfully tried to do was put across the idea that just because something that isn't depraved used to be wrongly thought of as being depraved (if it ever was), everything that's called depraved, thefore, isn't depraved at all. There's a word for it that escapes me, but it's totally illogical thinking. Anything else?

Some horror movies are just scary stories, but some are like you are thinking, and I'd say the same about anyone who enjoys watching the stuff - depraved minds.

One point I would like to make here is that anyone who fantasises about such things really does need to see a psychiatrist. And I'm being perfectly serious. Saying that it's just fantasy does not justify anything like that. It's depravity - nothing less.

I wouldn't have done it that way. I would have asked if I could join in. Only if I was denied would I have ARed it

After it's been roasted and sawn into bite-size chunks?

I did say "for pleasure" And besides, that's not sawing someone in half. It's a known fake of it.

Thank you, Pam. It's one of a range of chesterfields that I made. I posted that one as an example.

Never having included a pic before, I'm going to give it a go... Celtic iron fireplace (3 prims) Chesterfield sofa (6 prims - the most prims I ever used for a sofa) It cheats though because the feet are a 1-prim scuplty.

hmmm. nice

HEY! YOU STOLE MY DESIGN!!! I used to sell lamps like that, but only floor lamps They weren't very good because you can't light up the shade without lighting up the stem as well, so they can't behave like a lamp. Good thread, btw.

Except when they go beyond the parcel boundaries I wonder how the rule would work if the little sub-plots that host the root prims were built on. It'd probably be ok.

I think I'll buck the trend Simulations of roasting people and sawing them in half is totally and utterly wrong, regardless of whether or not it's legal in some country or other, pixel, or whatever. It makes no difference whether or not the 'victim' agrees to it. It's wrong, and that's that. Sorry if that gets up anyone's nose, but, if something is wrong when done for real, it's wrong when simulated for pleasure. The idea that anyone can do anything as long as it's consented to is totally wrong, but that's the idea that's coming across from one or two people.

But none of that was your complaint. Your compaint was that the transfer fee ($600) isn't lower than it is for other sim owners.

The OP makes it sound more gruesome than it actually is, but it definitely doesn't belong in a Moderate sim when it's open for all to see.

The op said that it's an extension, and I assume that's what it is - with a door-sized hole in it

There's no door - just a doorway opening

Yes. And you can walk into it too.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you got 2 years at a saving of $100 a month. That's $2400. I've forgotten how much the buy-down cost, but I'm sure it was nowhere near that much - $1000 maybe? The sums say that you made a big gain. If it was much more than $1000, then my inclination would be in your favour, but not about transfer fees. Why should the transfer fee be any different to everyone else's? You were offered reduced tier - nothing else. Do the original grandfathered sims have a lower transfer fee? If they do, I'd agree with you about it.

On staircases, I totally agree. That was the one thing that I had in mind that would greatly benefit from being mesh, when writing my post. I hadn't thought of windows though. Certainly some windows would greatly benefit.

There are 2 options (not counting Ban) when removing someone from land. 1. Eject and 2. Send Home. Eject puts them on the next parcel, like yours does. Script writers can include them in the scripts. I would have thought that all security devices have a user-selectable choice as to which is used. Better ones might also have the user-selectable option to first eject, and then send home if the avatar returns within a set time.

If/when I build anything, I do it with prims. It's my nature to want to produce everything myself rather than pay someone else, so, since I have no desire to spend the amount of time it would take me to learn to make decent mesh objects, prims it is. I don't create much these days, anyway. Just the odd thing for my own use. And, since the LI allowance has increased, there is more reason to opt for prims. Commercially though, I don't think there's much in the way of prim objects being sold any more.

Thanks Callum. I was in the process of adding an ETA to my previous post, but during it, Ceka quoted me and then you posted, so I'll make the ETA a seperate post. And here it is:- Found it. Gaming traffic was banned in April 2009. That means it was a rather silly thing to do because the GSA had already been in use for some time, which meant that the effect of traffic in the search results was quite small. Before the GSA, the amount of traffic a parcel got was the default measure for the search rankings, and it was the only measure. Parcels were ranked according to how much traffic they got. That was the reason why camping and such sprang up. When the GSA came in, it all changed. Traffic was still counted as before, but the search results were ranked according to other factors. The GSA didn't take any account of traffic at all. What it did count highly were links to pages (parcels had their own html pages), so LL created links to the top 20 parcels in terms of traffic. The top one got 20 links, the next one got 19 links, and so on down to 1 link. Not being in the top 20 meant that traffic had no search ranking effect at all on the parcel. So only a few parcels in the whole of SL benefitted from traffic at the time that gaming it was banned. And that was at a time when SL was brimming over with stores, malls, and such, so a parcel that got any search ranking benefit from traffic was very rare. It was banned because of it being gamed for higher search rankings, even though it made no difference whatsoever to pretty much all parcels. In banning it, the desirable things that the op mentioned - camping, money trees, etc. - went out of the window, and SL became significantly less than it had been. More recently, the search results show traffic, and the search system is no longer the GSA. Traffic may actually be a factor in rankings now. ETA: On reflection, the old grey cells not being quite what they used to be, I now think that it was the 50 or even top 100 parcels that got the 'engineered' links for the GSA, and not just the top 20. My reasoning is still very similar but not quite as strong as I'd written.

If you can also remember when gaming traffic was banned, I'd appreciate it I've now got the introduction of the GSA down to late in 2007, but I haven't made any headway with the ban. It was announced in an LL blog, and (I think) it was me who started a thread about it in RA.