Sy Beck

I guess you hit rock bottom. *groans and leaves stage left.

Venus Petrov wrote: Sy Beck wrote: She's a very insightful woman and all the crayoned certificates proves that she knows her stuff. Didn't I see you on the way out of her office? No, I do not meet Dr. Carole in her office. She makes house calls....oh....sorry....I guess you are not on her 'special' list. I made the special interests group not the special needs one. Meh. :smileysad:

Storm Clarence wrote: Sy Beck wrote: Didn't I see you on the way out of her office? No that was me in drag. I said hello big boy, didn't I? Hmm, maybe. What was that alluring perfume...? Gin? And really...those shoes with that bag, what were you thinking of?

There is another option, a far, far darker one. It would entail the first online avatar cleansing programme. LL would forcibly eject all avatars from sparsely owned lands and relocate them into higher owned density lands and then destroy their previous homelands for good, wiping it from the face of the virtual world; an inverse lebensraum as it were. This would then start to bring a more economic ratio of population to available land. As the political maxim goes though, "It's easier not to give people something they want than to take away something they have.". P.S. To the dim of thinking, this is of course tongue in cheek.

She's a very insightful woman and all the crayoned certificates proves that she knows her stuff. Didn't I see you on the way out of her office?

An old TV theme I was looking for that I was surprised to find had dubbed on to it the famous monologue of Howard Beale from the award winning 1976 film Network. Just goes to show, not a lot changes in 35yrs.

Phil Deakins wrote: ...The problem with SL is that it doesn't include anything for people to do - no gameplay, no tasks, nothing to aim at achieving, nothing. Everyone just makes of it what they can, but the system doesn't incorporate anything for people to actually do. Small islands with very low tier costs wouldn't change that. It would still be a place where everyone has to find things to do on their own because the system still wouldn't include anything... ...Whilst LL may have got the tier fees wrong for the current financial climate, I honestly think that many of the people who want tier to be drastically reduced, as a measure to ensure that SL continues, actually want it reduced so that *they* can afford more land.... Those are two interesting points you raise Phil. The first one I've never considered about SL even though it's the basis of nearly every other MMO/RPG e.g.. World of Warcraft and others of the same ilk, whereby the developers are always having to add new task orientated content to keep their userbase engaged. Usually when I get bored I will start to learn a new SL skill or a related offline one to support my interests in SL. For the people who like to just socialise or those who have a full SL skillbase though there is no other option to explore unless it's to go to new nightclubs, find new friends or take up the life of the nomad and trek through all the lands of SL looking for something new. What that magic new content may be I don't know than to suggest copying the pattern of other MMOs and producing task and reward orientated content, which I know will go down like a bucket of sh*t with some here. As regards your second point above about land there maybe some truth in that. I'd like to relate though a recent experience of mine. I traveled over the road to InWorldz to look at the possibility of land owning and building over there. What is striking over there is the comparative pricing. Less than a third of the price of an SL mainland sim and well over twice as many prims for the same sized area. Given the recent call for a lowering of tier in SL, of which I've been one to aid the economy, then you would think that IW should have a booming economy. Far from it, there are many, many people there offering FREE rental to get any kind of presence (especially merchants) on their land and there is no MP to restrain land acquisition by merchants/creators. Their forum boards have pretty much the same flavour as here with merchants/creators decrying the slide in sales. So land pricing can't be seen as a magic bullet or a general panacea for all SL's ills, other factors such as, RL economy, steep learning curve for first time users and a stagnating population growth all have to be considered too.

Carole Franizzi wrote: 1.) Did your Mummy love you? Mummy loved lots of people for a small negotiable fee. 2.) Did you Mummy spank you? Not till I was a grown man and I had forgotten our weekly foot massage appointment. I respected her more for it. 3.) Did your Mummy tell you that your dingle-dongle would drop off if you played with it? Not only that, but she showed me a drawful of dingle dongles she had collected over the years. You'd think people would pick them up after they had dropped off.

Storm Clarence wrote: Edo Mode wrote: I saw that chart..first level of 5dollars give me 512 plus my 'free' 512 which gives me a total of 1024 to donate to my group. the next level of 8dollars gives me 1024.. do i still get the free 512? That should give me 1024+512=1536 to donate to group. but it doesn't. 8 dollars a month still only gives me 1024m2 to donate to group.So, what is the point of the 8dollar level? Ok that is a little more clear. Yes, you should get the 1536sqm (as was explained to me not so long ago as I thought you could not donate your 512 freebee to a group.) Not only should you get 1536sqm but you should be able to get an additional 154sqm as part of the 10% group holding bonus. Maybe you should go into the group>landholding and make your adjustments from that point. Have you done this yet or only from the dashboard? ^THIS

The law states that tax is liable where the service is consumed. Therefore, that would mean wherever your PC is located when you login to SL, the origination or source is of no consequence to the law. On a general point, taxes are easier and more efficient to collect when you have less and more stationary organisations to collect them from. Therefore, your employer deducts your taxes and businesses charge you VAT rather than any tax collector chasing down every single person in the country to collect taxes individually. Anyhoos, I'm away to do something more interesting than talking about tax legislation, banging nails into concrete with my head would be a starter, enjoy flogging this dead horse.

You have asked why and I and others have shown you why they charge. If you want it changed then like I said contact your local MEP to have the law changed though you will have every electronic service company in Europe opposed to you or you can lobby LL and ask them to absorb it. Don't get me wrong I have sympathy with the argument being somebody who owned sims when this was first introduced and being basically wiped out of the rental business in one night. Thousands of us argued our case at the time and LL were resolute that were was going to be no u-turn and that they had been absorbing the cost for too long. You will also find that a large amount of US customers do not like the idea that LL would in effect subsidise European customers' use of SL. Some of them still hanker for a pure free market economy. Finally it is an obtuse argument to say that somebody is not obliged to abide by the laws of a country where they trade. Are you saying that gun manufacturers in the US can freely sell guns in the UK because they don't have to abide by UK laws? European companies have to abide by US laws when operating there and it is the same in reverse. As regards your example, then contact HMRC and ask them if said company is liable, or if not, why they are exempt. I think I would accept as a more valid answer an institution backed up by law to tell me what it is rather than a company in another country who wants to sell me something.

I'll repeat my previous post as you all seemed to have overlooked it in your rush of indignation. In short blame the EU and European businesses. Many European providers of electronic services protested that they were having to pay VAT while companies outside of the EU could provide services into Europe without incurring VAT. Therefore, the law was changed so that any company providing electronic services and goods within the Euro area would be charged an applicable VAT rate. Some companies chose to absorb the cost on behalf of their customers LL decided to pass it on to customers. What always annoyed me is that I assume some kind of US sales tax is factored into LL's pricing so I'm therefore paying the same kind of tax twice!

This should explain it all, happy reading. :smileywink: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/traders/e-commerce/index_en.htm Relevant extract: OECD principles These measures mean that the EU became the first significant tax jurisdiction in the world to develop and implement a simplified framework for consumption taxes on e-services in accordance with the principles agreed within the framework of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The Directive therefore complements the international process at the OECD. The OECD principles on the taxation of e-commerce were agreed at a 1998 conference in Ottawa. These principles establish that the rules for consumption taxes (such as VAT) should result in taxation in the jurisdiction where consumption takes place. The OECD also agreed that a simplified online registration scheme, as now adopted by the Council, is the only viable option today for applying taxes to e-commerce sales by non-resident traders.

They do. A service counts the same as physical goods for tax purposes. If you bought an American car and imported it into Europe then you would have to pay tax. If you are playing SL in Europe you are receiving a service in Europe no matter where it originated from and are there for liable for any or all relevant taxes. If LL failed to pay VAT in Europe then they could have their service blocked or interrupted with. Remember, Microsoft paid its biggest fine ever in Europe for breaking European legislation over its IE package. A product that doesn't physically exist.

Randall Ahren wrote: I don't understand what they hope to accomplish by copying the wall feature from Facebook. Is that just a desperation move from a company that believes it has painted itself into a financial corner and cannot see a way out? I think you need to turn it around slightly. From what I understand about the popularity of Facebook are the endless little addon MMO games it now features. This whole genre of social networks is now branching out to encompass anything that can be used on the platform. Therefore, LL is coming at it from the other end of the spectrum as it were to entice those who like a little MMO gaming/VW with some social interaction and tempt them into SL.

In short blame the EU and European businesses. Many European providers of electronic services protested that they were having to pay VAT while companies outside of the EU could provide services into Europe without incurring VAT. Therefore, the law was changed so that any company providing electronic services and goods within the Euro area would be charged an applicable VAT rate. Some companies chose to absorb the cost on behalf of their customers LL decided to pass it on to customers. What always annoyed me is that I assume some kind of US sales tax is factored into LL's pricing so I'm therefore paying the same kind of tax twice! If you go to the archived forum pages you will find pages and pages of posts regarding this topic. If you want it to change I'd suggest contacting your local MEP, LL have, and continue to show no sign of shifting their stance. [ETA] @all it has nothing to do with having physical offices in Europe, it is the services they [LL] provide that are charged. Offices in European countries would already be paying VAT as a normal part of business activity and would be claimed back for a nil sum as they are a resident business.

I find it a delicious irony that in an internet age where irl people shop more and more online that in SL, a prime example of living a life online, people are requesting that others travel to shops inworld rather than do the SL equivalent of shopping online via MP. P.S. I agree with them though. :smileywink:

@Ceka & @Phil Hmm...ok, I'm glad you can fathom her mind. It was the L$1 for a prim that had me.

Mayalily wrote: Also, with mesh and spulpties, that is far, far less than prims. Perhaps LL should make it .30 lindens to the sculpty or mesh instead of 1L per prim (If I have that info correct on the prim). I have not the slightest, iota of an inkling of what you mean by this.

I had the exact same problem a couple of weeks ago after buying a product. I logged on the next day to find about 5 msgs from the same merchant advertising products. I wrote an IM saying that if they continued to spam me then I would never shop with them again so their spam would have the opposite effect of what they wanted. So far so good. Most times on retail websites or in world groups you are given an option to opt out or opt in to being mailed info/news. Merchants should adopt the same practice on MP too.

Anyone (in the UK) remember Mike Basset the fictional football manager? He was managing a team called Wirral (real place) United or something and they were sponsored by the local waste disposal company. So all across the team shirts was emblazoned the legend "Wirral Rubbish".

Is there a JIRA to fix this?

Eloise Baily wrote: I'm using Firestorm Mesh Beta and it gives you the option to use the V3 interface. I decided to try it so I could help the newbies but actually, I quite like it. Not sure where you are seeing the similarities Eloise. I've been using FS with V3 interface and its visible screen UI bears little resemblance to the V3 as now released. Unless you mean what's hidden in the top menus...?

Charolotte Caxton wrote: It's always the bleepin guy in the front! Why wont he just move over or go away!! Lag...?

Well it's a bit like traffic congestion isn't it. One person in their one car doesn't think that they are the problem and that it's everyone else in their cars around them that's causing the traffic congestion; who also happen to be thinking the same thing.