Dana Hickman

Cali Souther wrote: Dana Hickman wrote: Storm Clarence wrote: Do you ask the same thing of non-ding-a-ling dudes? I ask that in one way or another to everyone who puts the moves on me. If they can't respect me enough to give an honest, straightforward answer, then I probably won't respect them enough to consider saying yes. That's just how I roll. I think it's important if you are going to become intimate, but for online chatting & just hanging out with a group of friends - It doesnt matter to me what gender someone is. That's just the way, I roll. I was talking about me asking the people who hit on me to be blunt about telling me their intentions, not anything to do with gender. I'm an immersionist and couldn't care less what gender someone is in RL, even if there's intimacy involved.

Ok, who necroed? Geez.. light a match or sumfin :smileytongue:

Depends on the viewer.. Phoenix has an Asset Blacklist that derendered AVs get listed on, and you have to remove their names from it and either Tp away/back or relog to get them to show up again. It doesn't work without taking their name off that list. I dunno how other viewers do it.

Storm Clarence wrote: Do you ask the same thing of non-ding-a-ling dudes? I ask that in one way or another to everyone who puts the moves on me. If they can't respect me enough to give an honest, straightforward answer, then I probably won't respect them enough to consider saying yes. That's just how I roll.

Perrie Juran wrote: I would agree in a pure roleplay it would not be actionable. But if I said I'd pay you 1000L to come roleplay with me that might be actionable. Right. That's why I said that RP and RP characters are assumed unreliable sources (probably should've said presumed instead). It is known when people enter into RP that most, if not all of it is "fictious construct", and things said in it aren't binding because they are story. It's certainly a whole different thing when someones uses their AV as a legit agent of themself to make real binding agreements. That has as much weight as wording it out and signing it to a piece of paper in a lot of cases, just harder to enforce is all.

Jacki Silverfall wrote: These are adults. If they can't AR, Mute, TP then its time to quit the game. push the big red X. I agree. If there's not enough factual evidence to warrant filing a report, then there's not enough actual transgression to warrant filing a report either.. which pretty much means someone is just getting waaayyy too touchy and butthurt about things that don't actually cross the line. The TOS covers a lot of things, but it doesn't say that people aren't allowed to be a**holes.

Perrie Juran wrote: Exactly. What is at issue here is the validity and enforceability of an electronic contract. For instance, you negotiate a price with an Escort in SL for certain services, pay them the agreed price and then they don't perform their end of the deal. Would you have a legal standing to take them to court to recoup your Lindens? We are entering into a whole new legal area that is still being hashed out but oral contracts (incorrectly called 'verbal') and electronic contracts are enforceable under law Yes, but I hadn't referred to anything that involved measurable loss on the part of the victim, which is really the only characteristic of such a "deal" that would make such a thing actionable by law. I was only talking about the verbal (ie- lying, misrepresentation, etc.. like talk found in the OPs hypothetical example of roleplay dialog), not about things that amount to theft, fraud, etc.. that causes some kind of loss (ie- copybotting). I never made that leap from mere talk over to where a lot of the rest of this discussion has gone with binding contracts because I was only commenting on the idea of holding RP talk liable, as was put forth early on by the OP.

Hilarious! :smileytongue: Usually when the ding-a-ling chicks ask me to dance or go home with them, I just play dumb and ask them "why?" or "what for?".. puts them on the spot and makes them have to spell out the specifics of their intentions right from the start. They friggin HATE that lmao.

Perrie Juran wrote: So then an Avatar that copybots can't be held legally accountable (I'm talking RL Law here, not the TOS) because the Avatar is a "fictitious construct?" Will "I was just role playing a thief" hold up in a Court of Law? What you talk of is a completely different issue and context. He was talking about making binding verbal statements and contracts and asking about whether those can hold up to RL legal scrutiny. Copybotting is a DMCA issue, for which there are certain protections already in place.

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: Now this is the point I was attempting to raise. If an AV is a character is it legally reasonable to enforce a standard of behavior normally applied only to mature adults capable of managing their own affairs? I'm not sure why a roleplay "character" even could be held accountable considering it's entirely a fictitious construct, and therefore it's entire credibility at making binding statements or contracts, as well as the validity of any made are immediately called into question. No different than having an unreliable or questionable witness on the stand in a RL court, or even a biased juror in the panel. There's simply no guarantee, implied or otherwise, that such a "character" could be acting in good faith as an accurate and binding agent of the person behind it. There's even no guarantee that the approved account holder is indeed the person behind the keyboard at the time in question. Only evidenced acts or verifiable patterns of behavior in a RL capacity could ever lend any real credibility to an otherwise unreliable, and assumed unreliable source. This would probably hold true for all avatars, regardless of how they choose to approach SL personally, even the Lindens themselves.

I know 5 or 6 people who look like this or worse, and despite being pretty nice people I have to fight the urge to tell them they look like angry little emo trolls, and are most definitely NOT cute.. which is what I tend to think they were going for along with a heavy goth/emo style. It's actually kind of disturbing to me, but they do have the right to look any way they choose in SL.

Large radius facelights in public places... There's no reason a facelight should be any larger than 2m radius, yet people wear ones that are maxed out and end up making everyone else at the venue have to see SL the way THEY choose. I didn't buy a superb dark tanned skin so that some self-absorbed bimbo can completely white it out from 30m or more away. It's not about turning off attached lights or derendering these fools, it's about them changing the default for everyone in the area just because it's possible to do. I can understand if the person is new and naive, but it's the older ones who know better but still do it anyway that piss me off. Their need to be the speshial snowflake is so overwhelming that it becomes "to hell with everyone else", and I don't think others should have to pay the price for these peoples shortcomings. I also get a bit disgusted with the other people around who hate these super big facelights but don't speak up. One can sit and watch one of these nuclear facelight fools actually herd people around the venue or dancefloor like they were sheep, all moving to get away from the light, yet you almost never see anyone say a thing. I'm sorry but that's just weak.

Clarissa Lowell wrote: No, sorry. If you copy the numbers I made - which do require thought, decision, and aesthetic ability to choose in the unique combination I ended upon - and put your name on it, then you are a thief. End of story. This is true. Even through intentional legit imitation, the odds of arriving at exactly the same values on more than say 50% or so of all *commonly adjusted* slider values is so astronomical that to find such is pretty much a guarantee of thievery. Someone who does that is no different than those inworld who write down all the object parameters of mod prims, one after another, until they end up with a perfect copy of someone elses construction that shows them as the new creator. RE-creations are not creations at all, they are intentional copies and a willful attempt at bypassing owner name or object permissions, and they still count as theft. IMO Mod item RE-creators are only 'manual' copybotters in a sense, but worthy of less respect than real copybotters because they demonstrate the amount of deceitful effort a thief will put into calling someone elses work their own.

So, the trees are finally done then? Figures... I have no idea why they'd do that, but i'd probably change that answer if I found out how much of the trees sway and related things was done sim side... and if none of it was sim side then it's flat out a bonehead decision to get rid of it.

Syo Emerald wrote: And that part with behaving normally was about saying adults need their freedom because they need to talk that way. And I just thought thats a stupid argument when talking about just one conversation. Nobody said adults "need" their freedom or "need" to talk that way though. I said they "enjoy" that they don't always have to monitor themselves here, which is a known and proven big draw for people. There are huge numbers of adults that come here specifically to get away from all that responsibility, but I never suggested that loosing that momentarily was in any way an impediment to a conversation, more like something many would just rather not have to worry about during "me" time. He did say that he told her that she was too young and that he couldn't be her friend, which was after he found out she was 13. That was civil enough, and it certainly wasn't this guys responsibility to sit and chat with her after that, or tutor her about surfing the net at her age. It's one thing to talk with someone you know is 13 beforehand, and it's something completely different when the adult woman you were just talking to suddenly becomes a barely pubescent child. Caught off guard, the status quo changes drastically, you lose things to say, and because he's a guy it can get a bit uncomfortable.. perfectly understandable.

Syo Emerald wrote: I'm pretty sure he can hold is super adult humor and temper for a couple of minutes to have a short conversation with her. Its more awkward if someone can't behave normal and need to make sexual comments and discuss adult-only topics all the time. Edit: There is a huge difference between saying no to her friendoffer and thinking its awkward to talk with her. He did have a short conversation with her, which was 100% more than what was required. Nobody said anything about not being able to behave normal except you, and he did say it was the situation that got awkward, not him or the talking to her part. Suprising, unexpected, caught off guard at seeing a child not even old enough to be here, and her admitting it openly... absolutely... and lets not forget about the rather real chance that behind her oh-so-innocent AV sat one of the FBIs underage taskforce - internet crimes agents. For all you know the first 'bait' tactic was moments away when he bailed on that. That's certainly a helluva lot more plausible than suggesting he's just a "not normal" social misfit that can't communicate. Even his replies here prove that to be utter crap.

Belladona Viper wrote: There were nothing sexual in this girl,basing on what you wrote,I don't know how that can be awkward. The OP self-indentifies as being an adult in SL, and that usually means they enjoy the fact that they don't usually have to stifle comments or temper their humor around other adults in SL, as opposed to having to when around RL children. A child as young as this would surely be a complication to that SL freedom, even more so if he were to accept that friendship offer, and not being willing to tell her that would be.. awkward.

Six Igaly wrote: 3. If you ever would try to change that butt i'll come over and kick it! :smileytongue: Lol uh huh.. If I do then I'll be sure to make it a huge old flappy, cottage cheese butt.. that way if you dare kick it you'll end up losing a shoe. :smileytongue:

1. I never change who I am for anyone or anything. 2. I never change my best friends because they constantly prove why I regard them as that. 3. I never change this butt... :matte-motes-wink:

16 wrote: cant be happy all the time. can be content tho. or just accepting maybe. i think that was what Dana was getting at. like the conflicts are mostly in our own heads. so if we can accept that about ourselves then can find contentment. peace even sometimes Not content as I'm always pushing forward. The word is secure... secure with myself, even as flawed as I am. I recognize that even with all the tools I have to accomplish some pretty great things, there still exists only one person in the world who can precisely and systematically undo all that I strive to create, and that person is me. My own worst enemy is always the closest to me, but she's predictable and that gives me the advantage.

emmettcullen93 wrote: what is your second life about tell everyone! My SL is about the "walking conflict" that is me... I'm impulsive but crave routine, a very good creator with skills but gets bored using those skills, and a serial shopper who likes new stuff but not shopping for it. I'm a perv who's too picky to score, a showoff who really hates the spotlight, an explorer who's seen it all already. I'm selfish yet I help and fight for others. Love my friends the most yet I seem to talk to them the least. I'm a wily, jaded old vet who still looks at SL through the eyes of a noob. Good at a lot of things I don't particularly care to do, and fairly poor at things I seem to do on a regular basis. Closing in on 6 years now and I'm on reruns here, but it's all still fun and the people make it worth coming back to again and again. I've learned to laugh at myself because they say it's healthy, but mostly because it hides the sound of everyone else laughing at me :matte-motes-tongue:

Ok, but you can select the shirt layer for editing somehow, yes? That's usually all it needs to give it a kick start. Otherwise I'd say be safe and make sure it's not on your end by clearing the cache, see if that does it.

Raven1 Short wrote: Just noticed this happening recently. I don't know of anything I changed to cause this. If you look closely, halfway up the forearm it's solid with no distortion, but by the wrist it appears semi-transparent and flared out larger than the skinniest part of the wrist area... it sure looks like a leftover from having worn a baggy long sleeve shirt/jacket but the shape/mesh hasn't reloaded or recovered yet. If that's it then I've seen this happen tons on the pants leg area.. Appearance-->Shirt *should* correct it. System pants legs are infamous for leaving you with a pants cuff shape, but reapplying your skin texture over it when you change out of them and there's a loading problem of some kind. I'm guessing the above is what happens when you change out of a baggy top and there's a loading problem... hard to say.

Yes, that's the same Curio Pout skin that everyone has, probably one of the light acorn tones with the raccoon makeup. Can't tell from the pic if those are prim eyelashes or part of a not-so-good makeup layer (looking at the eyebrows also), but those parts are not from the skin or its makeup.. that much I can tell.

No Mod shapes, as annoying as they are, actually make more sense than creators shipping No Mod alpha layers with their mesh creations. For years it's been possible, on any texture-based item, to hide the texture preview box so that their precious texture doesn't show itself to Printscreen thieves. Makes me wonder if them doofuses realize how many people still use V1 viewers that don't have multiple layers.