Phil Deakins

That surprised me, Qie. It's something I've never checked because I've never had use for it, and the link in Lucia's post was unclickable at the time. It's ok now though, so I looked at the Jira. Anyway... I just had to see it for myself - of course - and this is what I've just found. I have 2 adjacent parcels, neither of which has any names in either the 'always allowed' or 'always banned' list. No names in either list. So I unchecked the 'can see and chat with other avatars on this parcel' option on one of the parcels, and logged another avatar in. When the test avatar walks into the 'can't see' parcel, it disappears. It reappears when it comes out. So it does work as I expected. It was done on the ground. I didn't do any test at 50m+. Perhaps it has been fixed since the Jira was posted in 2016. What surprised me was that as well as outside avatars not being able see avatars inside, inside avatars can't see avatars that are outside. I didn't expect that. So I'm off to do the same test but high in the sky. I'll get back to you. ETA: Yep. It works as I expected at 3700m, so the height above ground isn't a problem. ETA2: I've just had a closer look at Whirly's jira, and it's specifically about seeing and not seeing avatars when one is below ground+50m and the other above ground+ 50m. I haven't checked that. Perhaps I will. ETA3: I checked the 50+ variation and it still works as I expected. Neither avatar could see each other when one was on the ground in the protected parcel, and the other was at 96m right next to the parcel. When the 96m avatar moved horizontally onto the parcel, both could see each other. It all seems to work fine without the need for any name in either of the access lists.

Yes, but aren't premium accounts just for the p-branes?

The marketplace belongs in the Controversies blog, but definitely not in the Successes. It's been an unmitigated disaster for SL because it fundamentally changed the SL world. SL used to have shops to shop in. Now there are hardly any, and SL is no longer a complete world. I know that many people prefer to shop 'online', and that they prefer the marketplace to stores, but, imo, the marketplace radically changed SL for the worse. It's not as bad as shifting the creation of things out of SL though. That's a much worse change because it pretty much prevents almost all users from the very thing that SLL was about - creating stuff. But shifting shopping to the outside was still extremely bad imo. Incidentally, LL didn't do it for the users' benefit. That's never been their objective. They did it to get a bigger share of all the sales that were being made. They already got a share from cashing out, and from the land that stores occupied, but they wanted more. The marketplace was definitely NOT a success for SL, imo.

That's wrong. I've never use that feature but, very recently, I noticed that one of my bots had disappeared from sight. It had actually wandered into the parcel on the next sim. So I checked it with 2 avatars logged in with viewers, and, sure enough, no avatar on that parcel could be seen from my parcel. I've also recently found that it's impossible to see avatars in some other parcels when camming from the outside. That's not an uncommon misconception. Child avatars are allowed in adult sims. It's not against the ToS. However, what is against the ToS is child avatars in close proximity to sexual activity.

Just a note: The smallest parcel of land that can be created/cut is 4x4 meters, so no parcel can have any of its dimensions that don't divide exactly by 4.

That rings a big bell, yes. OpenSpace sims weren't the same, Vanity, and they were there long before Homesteads were introduced, accompanied by the fiasco.

Imo, the greatest successes were, and still are that some people have been able to make their RL livelihoods from SL. Others have been able to improve their RL living by making money in SL. I'm not into converting SL relationships into RL relationships, but I'd guess that some of those have been major successes for some people, but, for me, it's the improvement in RL livelihoods that some people have managed. P.S. Are you going to ask the 3rd question - greatest SL disasters?

That's an excellent song. I used to sing it to my daughters and they loved it. It made me smile just seeing it written here But I'm surprised that you know it, Chin

I think this was probably before 2012 but that website is only good if you're browsing, but no good if you're looking for something specific, which is what I tried to do. So I'll mention it anyway. Even though it didn't involve me, the biggest controversy from my point of view was when LL started selling a sim type with reduced capacity. I forget what the sim type was called, but it was more than an OpenSpace sim. People asked LL if it was ok to do certain things on the sims, and LL said yes it is. People were even told, "that's what they are for". Then, after selling a load of them, LL realised that they had made a mistake and claimed that people were using them for things that they weren't intended to be used for - things like clubs and such, which are the very things that people were told it's ok to do on them, and "that's what they are for". And LL changed it all. I don't remember if they stopped selling them, or made rules as to what could no longer be done on them. It was like... LL: "Buy these cheaper sims. You can do 'this and that' with them." USER: "Oh goody. I'll take some." LL: "Thank you for your money, but you're not allowed to do 'this and that' with the sims." USER: "WHAT???!!!!" I think that LL reimbursed, but it was a huge controversy at the time.

That's a huge gripe of mine. SL was a place where loads of people had a go at building, and a great many of them had a go at selling from their inworld stores. It was a huge part of SL, almost to the point of being what SL was about. Now, virtually nobody has a go at building with a view to selling, because it would require a great deal of time using a completely different programme. And the relative few who do go that way don't even need an inworld store. Just stick the stuff in the marketplace and, if it sells, it sells. If it doesn't, it doesn't. SL is vastly different in a very negative way to what it was. I'd go so far as to say that it's been scuppered by LL.

Since I first blocked someone, the blocked people's posts have always been listed in my 'unread content', but it's never shown me the normal first line of their posts. I click to see the threads in case others have added to them before the blocked people. I recently thought that something had changed though. Clicking the Ignore User option doesn't block them, and I thought it did that automatically. You have choose what to block - posts, signature and something else. Those choices were always there, but I don't remember having to choose before. I thought that clicking Ignore User automatically blocked their posts. I decided that I must have been mistaken.

Better still. The users need to learn how find the avatars inworld

LMAO! BRILLIANT

There is no rule about not being allowed to state the names of those who have posted in the thread. She won't state them, because she knows that there are none that match her claims. Her claims, incidentally, keep changing as she learns that her previous claim was wrong. Here is her first claim (from her op):- "This is one of the things that have long baffled me is why people can have names on the forums that do not correspond to an actual avatar inworld. It's not that people have let their old account lapse inworld and still chat on the forums; it's that names are used that have no equivalent inworld." She soon learned that she was wrong, so, rather than admit her mistake - something that never does because, in her mind, she doesn't make mistakes or get anything wrong - she morphed the claim to include GOOGLE, and then into what she wrote a few posts back:- It's no longer that some people "have no equivalent inworld" because she now knows that that's wrong, even though she'll never admit it. It's now "don't show up inworld" and "don't have any regular my.secondlife.com profile". Her orginal claim was totally wrong, and she now knows that. Her current claim is that some people can't be found in the places where she wants to look - GOOGLE and web search. She's right about 'b', but still wrong about 'a' because they all show up inworld. She has yet to learn that part. When she's learnt it, her final claim should be spot on

Not you.

@halebore Aeon The best way to deal with some people here is to add them to your ignore list. That way, you won't know what they say, so you won't feel anything about it. I have very few on my list, but Klityna is one of them. In fact she was the first. Not because she annoyed me, or anything like that, but because she never has anything of value or interest to say, and the way she says nothing of any value or interest is always idiotic, imo. It's like she writes for her own benefit, so that she can read it over and over, and feel good about having written it. Ignoring her means that I'm not tempted to read anything she writes, even when I get a notification that she's quoted me. If someone quotes her, I can see the quote, but I usually ignore it anyway.

I realised that I'm not sure about what I wrote, so I deleted it.

This is your op in its entirety:- Perhaps you could point to the bits in it where you mentioned several times that IT COULD NOT BE FOUND IN GOOGLE. I refer you to both the title you gave to this thread, AND to the bit of your post that I've just quoted. If you didn't mean that nicks are allowed in the forum, why did you ask why they are allowed? I'll put it all down to just another thread in which you make no sense at all - none that anyone can determine, anyway.

I don't know where that came from, but I can tell you that the op lost all respect from me many years ago, and, since then, has continually confirmed that it was the right decision - including in this thread, I might add. Unlike you, though, I sometimes do post good replies to those who I have no respect for. My first post in this thread was intended to be helpful, and is a good example. But look at her response to it.

She wasn't saying that. She thought that nicknames were being used in the forum, and that they cannot be related to any avatar/account inworld. She was wrong. She may have incorrectly used the word 'nick' (nickname) when actually thinking of alts, but it doesn't make any difference, since there are no avatar names in the forum that can't be found inworld. I agree with you about "why does it matter". It's difficult to come up with a reason, but, since it's not true, the question doesn't arise. My guess is that the op wanted to find out about someone who had been negative to her in the forum, but she didn't know how to do it.

I'm wondering if the OP has made the same mistake that I used to make, and that I've seen others make here. I used to misread the name Phorumities as Phorumites, not realising that it has an i near the end. And I've seen it written as Phorumites in posts. Searching for Phorumites brings nothing up. I wonder if the OP did that and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Wrong! You were not talking about people having nicknames in the forum but "no avatar inworld visible", or about "simple GOOGLE". Read your op again and remind yourself what you were talking about. You were talking about "no equivalent inworld", not "no avatar inworld visible". (1) You actually believed that nicknames (not alts) are allowed in this forum, and that we can't relate them to any SL avatar (inworld equivalent). We've shown you that that is not true. And they are all visible inworld anyway. (2) You weren't talking about any kind of search - not web search, not legacy search, and not "simple GOOGLE". We brought search up, because that's where you can find the inworld equivalents for all names that are used in the forum. Your were mistaken in your op. You need to accept it, instead of beating about the bush, trying to find something to cling on to.

In your op, you wrote, "It's not that people have let their old account lapse inworld and still chat on the forums; it's that names are used that have no equivalent inworld." That is a plain and clear statement. There is no mention of Google anywhere in your op. Instead, you wrote "inworld", so that's what you must have meant. Several people here, including me, have proved that your statement is wrong. Accept it. Claiming that you meant they can't be found in Google doesn't work, because you'd have said that if it's what you meant. Heck you didn't even mention search. You said "no equivalent inworld", and you were wrong. I find it quite astonishing that, after all the evidence that all accounts have equivalents inworld, you can write that. You say "people right in this thread have nicks on the forums but no avatar inworld visible" and "Try them and you'll see". You need to name at least one of them. The only one that's had a mention is Phorumities, and s/he shows up inworld. So give us a name please. The bottom line is that nobody has an account name here in the forum without having an inworld equivalent. You were wrong. Incidentally, when you search for an account, use the SL search and not Google. LL does not employ Google to keep a database of SL accounts. ETA: To post in this forum, you have to have an SL account. If you have an SL account, you show up inworld, and, therefore, have an equivalent inworld, regardless of whether or not you've ever logged into SL. It's as clear-cut as that.

Thank you, Drayke. I have a bit of chip on my shoulder about the disappeared ability to create and successfully sell objects in SL. Well, perhaps not a chip, but a very big, permanent moan. I've posted it several times. SL just ain't wot it used to be, and I think it's a real shame. LL has let the basic brilliantness of SL slip away, and I'm all for your ideas.