Sassy Romano

Darrius Gothly wrote: *sigh* I don't care how modern they make that story ... I still miss the pumpkin and mice. Which recipie do you prefer and did yours include the mice being sliced or boiled? Or is it a totally different story?

What was interesting was a recent thread in General where someone asked for help with a product and the rapid response was "contact the seller" to which the purchasers response was "I dont know who sold it to me I bought it from online market place" Now I don't know whether this is a "Marketplace issue" in that it creates a divide between merchant and purchaser, it certainly doesn't help when the recipient of the funds is an escrow account and the delivery or non delivery is handled 100% out of the responsibility of the merchant and with no effective communications method offered by the Marketplace, direct to a sellers email/IM, it's all a bit crap really. The connection between buyer and seller has diminished. Does this affect commerce? Probably not, people still buy things, sellers still sell things but the notion of a community has possible tended more towards an expectation that SL is free and you get "stuff" from this web shop thingy with little correlation between where that content originates. I don't feel that bumping up the number of groups just for spam purposes is necessarily the solution. Maybe if there was a different type of group created such that there was a distinction bewteen land groups/chat groups or store groups? That might work better but if there's no group chat allowed (as there often isn't in some store groups), then if only one way communications is expected, a subscriber group seems to be the appropriate solution. Anyway, don't forget that SL is pretty much in maintenance mode with no work being done to really change the technology, this has about as much chance to change as spotting a pair of mating pink unicorns. Lets not get confused about Viewer Managed Marketplace either, that's merely maintenance to finish off a 2 year overdue project to deliver "no copy" items.

Initially I thought the same but then reconsidered. Perhaps a better strategy would be to invite them to join in. Either they'll leave or will join. Win win as far as I can see.

LlazarusLlong wrote: or perhaps you thought that it was full of a nation of shopkeepers, and deadly dull as a consequence? NAILED IT! *ducks*

i) The dress was the right colour, right length, fit was perfect but she spilled tomato sauce over it and in the process ruined the silk. Out of frustration, she then left a 1 star review attacking price because it's totally outrageous that anyone should charge that much for a dress that she had to buy a second time if she still wanted it.

Just create a group role for your staff and give them land rights to teleport troublemakers home and ban if you wish. Smart advice is to use the least force because depending on the mindset of the idiot involved, you can just incite them to bring all their ALTs along instead. Either way, you don't need guns when land rights give you what they need.

IthanHunt wrote: Hello. I want sell item by markerplace. I enetered My marketplace -> Merchante home. Google to the rescue http://community.secondlife.com/t5/English-Knowledge-Base/Selling-in-the-Marketplace/ta-p/700193 (Ignore Darrius, he's cute but got his mind set firmly on VMM at the moment and he can't think of two things at once :matte-motes-wink-tongue:)

Hokeo wrote: I was offered inworld an object called "Killi Needs Candy" and if accepted partial or all L$ from my account would be taken at any given time.. Just to be clear, a scripted object will ask for debit permissions and up will pop a BIG YELLOW DIALOG BOX asking if you want to accept debit permission with the warning that L$ can be taken from your account. Simply accepting the object into inventory, or even just wearing it and declining the kind offer to drain your account, will NOT allow L$ to be taken then or at any time thereafter.

Depending on HUD, maybe take the animations out of the other two and put them into the one that works? This will require mod permissions on the one you want to add to and will also require that it's able to read additional animations and add them to the menu in a sensible way. There might be a notecard that builds the menu?

https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/BUG-7643

That almost certainly sounds like memory thrashing (swapping to disk). One completely free thing that you can try is to go into the viewer settings and set MaxHeapSize to something like 0.5. I've had varying success, sometimes it seems to honour it, sometimes it doesn't.

RLV allows the following of only these two debug settings:- AvatarSex (0 : Female, 1 : Male) : gender of the avatar at creation. RenderResolutionDivisor (1 -> ...) : "blurriness" of the screen. Combined to clever @setenv commands, can simulate nice effects. Note: renderresolutiondivisor is a Windlight only option (Basic Shaders must be enabled in graphics preferences) and as such, is not available in v1.19.0.5 or older viewers.

"Viewer" is the name for the SL client but yes, Radegast does have an option to render the scene too. It's on the menu "3D Scene"

It all remains completely moot though for the reason that I said... if someone sets a price, the other party can whine all the hell they like, go ahead and bring a legal case over a few L$. Except in the most rare of case, it just won't happen!

Perrie Juran wrote: Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Quick question... Why are you so hung up on it being given as a freebie? If i buy your mesh and decide i want to gift my group members with a no trans version for Valentines day, why would you care? You made your money. Point of law here. First sale doctrine. You can not dictate the price a reseller sets. Including giving it away. This is not legal. You can not dictate the resale price in any manner. US law only? This is where a lot of the legal debate in SL falters, we can debate any legislation we like but when the platform is in one country, the seller in another and the buyer in a 3rd, have fun either prosecuting or defending any point of law, especially where it's not one that LL wants or needs to uphold (such as the gambling one). Whether anyone likes it or not, if someone puts a set of limits on their product sold here, if they're not US resident and bound by US legislation and no such restrictive laws exist where they are, they can probably set terms that would fall foul of US legislation and there's not much that the buyer could whine about. Yes they could attempt to bring action but in probably 99.999% (made up statistic! ) they'd find it not worth the cost and thus nothing would happen.

Coby Foden wrote: How can you review a product without knowing it well (based on your experience)? Well just to be argumentative, a review could be written based on using the item inworld or seeing it or having purchased it inworld. For example one might comment on the textures or the build or how well the animations worked in an instance of a rezzed version. Amazon do let people do this but next to ones that have purchased the item it says "Verified purchaser". Personally though, i'd rather see the changes i've already stated or just remove it altogether.

Estelle Pienaar wrote: What a pity that the SL red light district doesn't have a forum, or I bet you'd look for allies there to ban those immoral activities. You mean like the four forums here? http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Adult-Content-Forum/ct-p/forums_adultcontent

HenryCrawford wrote: but I wanted to bring this to everyone's attention...The review section of the Marketplace cannot be used unless a product was purchased ON the Marketplace itself. Yes we know, working as intended. There was a time when LL was contemplating an inworld vending system that merchants could use that would then effectively be selling from the Marketplace system. If that were used then it would probably have followed that an inworld purchase via that system would have enabled a review on the MP system. However, there would be no requirement on merchants to use that system and LL would have likely wanted the same 5% commission so somewhat a deterrent especially when people are already paying tier for the purposes of operating an inworld presence. Nothing came of it, or the API that was once an idea. If you want the ability to review, buy on MP. That's the end of the story.

Tari Landar wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: I would think it not very hard to display the date of listing, something that would be useful for a number of reasons. Yes, it seems like a rather elementary concept to me. I'm still nto certain why LL has never implemented it. It's in the basket along with things like letting us select the "Mesh" checkbox that is metadata stored in the database but not exposed to the search options. Or sitting on the shelf next to "implementing boolean operators in search" Or in the drawer along with "showing the date of merchant last log in" All...very...simple...stuff.

We know all this. My question remains unanswered. Why do you care how anyone else wastes their money and what do you want to happen and why and why are you so bothered about it? (plus you seem to forget that many of us are not resident in a country with such laws that ban gambling and hence we find it all rather ridiculous and a fuss about nothing. As I said, gambling is completely legal here and advertised on TV. I'm completely at a loss as to understanding why how someone choses to throw their money away (on a game of chance or skill or whatever) is any concern of mine or even that of any governing state.) For most of us, banning marketplace would save the majority of people far more money than the minority interest (or disinterest) in the whole gaming scene in SL.

one simple enhancement would be the ability to view ALL the feedback left by an individual. like ebay does. Then it's trivial to get an insight into their ability and trend, plus it would go a long way towards exposing shills. i'm far more likely to take notice of someone with a genuine issue who also leaves positive reviews than someone who only spends their time smiting others on every review.

MERCHANTS CANNOT REMOVE REVIEWS!! They can flag a review which is then assessed by LL but they cannot remove it themselves. However, LL's track record of dealing with marketplace issues has historically by empirical evidence, proven itself to be a joke.

If the permission is no copy/transfer and the delivered item is no copy/transfer as it was in this case, why would a creator need to also state the same in the description? If the permissions are not as described, flag the item with "permissions not as described". Where permissions are complex, the option for creators is to chose the "see item description" and explain them there. This was not the case in the OP complaint.

Try adding "resident" to the name. LL screwed up plenty of things with poor implementation of display name vs account name

That wiki article is somewhat mistitled. They are referring to provider to client wireless services which is rather different to the more common in premise WiFi. Signal quality, interference and latency are the bigger issue supporting those and although they will also exist in-premise, the article does not in the body text state that SL is incompatible or not supported via home WiFi.