Jump to content

Lylani Bellic

Resident
  • Content Count

    91
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Lylani Bellic

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. LeeHere Absent wrote: Wow. I'm just going to take a moment to applaud Linden Labs on their actions to uphold one part the ToS. Thank you. Fixed that for you (my parts in italics) The behaviour of some people in this thread, irregardless of stated age, gender, intent or correctness of their response to the issue the thread is addressing, are in violation of the ToS and has been ignored by Linden Labs despite numerous claims that certain posts were reported.
  2. Daria.Afterthought wrote: Wrong. And people click "I agree" by engaging in the IM and "I disagree" by not engaging. Ignorant consent = Passive consent. The US way of defining consent does not mean everyone elses. Seeing as Linden Labs, as a company, has to abide by US law does not mean that their definition of consent has to extend to all those supported by the real world system. Because so long as they, as a company, abide by the laws they can do what they want with their ToS and their game. Thus what they count as consent may or may not include "passive consent" despite how much y
  3. Factitious argument. Nowhere does anyone have to click "I agree" (thus not making it 'passive consent' as you previously stated) before they're allowed to IM said person. Even if you click "I agree" without reading that's not passive consent, that's ignorant consent. You activtly thought, for however long or short a time, about if you should click or not and chose to click "I agree" thus it was not passive. If you know what you're agreeing to is a whole nother matter and is not related to this topic or the specific argumentative points I raised. Try again.
  4. More likely they did nothing to you because of the nature of the information you were sharing and for the reasons. Stating that you can share IMs in your profile and that such a statement clears them of having to abide by the ToS in regard to discloser is akin to saying I can shoot you because you walked on my lawn and because I have a sign posted about said actions it doesn't matter if I own private property or if I live in downtown. Notifying people doesn't excuse me from the fact that what I did (shared IMs/shot someone) breaks a rule/law it just makes it really easy to find the culprit.
  5. integer Range = 40; float Arc = 2 * PI; float Frequency = 10.0; list Previous; key Target; default { state_entry() { llSensorRepeat( "", "", AGENT, Range, Arc, Frequency ); } sensor( integer Sensed ) { do { Target = llDetectedKey( --Sensed ); if (llListFindList(Previous, Target) == -1){ Previous += ; llDialog( Target, "Message ", [], -42 ); } }while (Sensed) }} That's what I found to change. I havn't tri
×
×
  • Create New...