Solar Legion

Congrats. Take the needed steps and move on (Report, block/mute and/or derender/blacklist). They circumvent the block? Repeat the prior steps. Repeat as many times as it takes because guess what - you cannot do much more whatsoever. Not here, not anywhere else either. And anyone attempting to conflate real life stalking to Second Life has immediately lost whatever 'argument' they were trying to have and nulled any 'point' they were attempting to make.

The function replaces the existing item on the attach point/layer it is set to whereas Add simply tosses it on as an additional item. Remove takes off a particular item. Wear (which should be Wear and Replace) cannot do that latter - you are not right-clicking on the item you wish to Remove. The function is different - not redundant. If content creators actually bothered to have rigged mesh items attach to actually sensible points as opposed to tossing them all onto the 'default' point (Right Hand) then it would go a bit of a ways for some items in having Wear/Replace be more sensible and properly useful from the word 'Go'. As an example and a more personal one: I have several Anthropomorphic forms and a "Human" form. The Anthropomorphic forms sometimes require me to swap out what feet/footpaws I am using whereas the Human ones often end up with different shoes. "Wear/Replace" would be ideal for this sort of situation, especially if I am putting together a brand new form (which I often do piece by piece). There is no reason for me to individually go through and hit "Remove" on every single item I wish to replace.

"Easiest" and "sensible" are not often the same thing. Removal of a function is also not always a solution - just a way to ignore related issues.

That's nice. If LL ever listens to such broad changes they will end up breaking things far worse than they have prior. If you do not believe such then you have not been paying attention at all. As for taking the time to actually go through a proper tutorial or to read a tooltip or similar: Translations are a thing as far as language barriers go. beyond that, if you're in too much of a hurry or too lazy to bother paying attention to even a tooltip ... That is on you, beginning and end. More "basic" functions (Such as the Wear function) should be covered by the Tutorial and have at least a tooltip explaining them. More advanced functions (actually under the hidden away Advanced menu or ones that the average user won't be touching on most days (Terraforming functions as a 'minor' example)) ought to have better documentation that a user can go to. If you honestly believe that the above is "No Changes" then ... You may continue to be wrong without being questioned further anywhere from this point forward. You may continue in the childish belief that sensible, smaller changes are "No Change" uncontested from this point forward as well. It is obvious that you do not care nor will you listen to anything whatsoever that does not contain larger scale or broader changes on anything whatsoever. ETA: As far as the latter half of that 'response' of yours goes ... That is also, nice. You entirely missed the point and wish to pretend that being sensible is not a solution while pretending that the issues lie somewhere other than their sources. Being able to be attached anywhere does not excuse the practice of putting every single rigged item on the exact same attachment point. That needs to stop. There being not even a basic explanation of how layers work is indeed a failing on LL's part and needs to be rectified. "No Changes" my right buttock ...

That is on the item Creator, especially in the present age (Rigged Mesh and such). There really is no excuse for near everything to be set to the same attachment point, even with the way rigged mesh functions. As far as layers go: That is a failing on LL's part for not covering that in the tutorials or in an easy to see bit of documentation/a tooltip.

Not what was said or implied whatsoever - enough of this BS. A change has been suggested, one that actually makes sense (as opposed to "Oh iz too hard for meh!! This must go!!") - Rename the function and provide some form of documentation/tooltip as to its function and/or a bit in the tutorial covering it. Not hard to grasp and is indeed a change. A change that makes actual sense.

Not the first time this has come up. The response is still the same: All that might be good to have happen is for it to be renamed to Wear & Replace or Wear/Replace and perhaps an explanation as either part of the onboarding tutorial or as a tooltip. That's it. That's all. That is - as far as I am concerned - the proper course of action.

Help -> Report Abuse -> Choose -> Near Me tab ((or if you log your IMs and they sent you one ... Go grab their name from there and use Search within that same floater) - assuming FS, default/other TPVs may have a somewhat different configuration). No reason whatsoever to unblock anyone. The remainder of the post is a prime example of how not to go about Second Life (or the Internet in general) on top of a wide range of other issues that belong solely to the poster.

It is very telling that some of the users here act as though there isn't a Report system that should be used if the need arises. It is further telling that these same users pretend that the advice/solution to make use of the stock Block/Mute as well as any additional TPV features (Derender/Blacklist and such) does not include filing an Abuse Report as a matter of course, where applicable. It does not need to be stated - if you're being harassed, you file the Report. You then use the existing tools. You do this for every single Alt that shows up, if the harassing user is even slightly serious about their harassment/abuse. You do not respond to them. You do not give them any satisfaction. You do not give them anything after that first interaction. They also utterly fail to realize that the two way blocking they've been pushing would be a visual indicator of a 'response'. While also failing to recognize that there is nothing whatsoever stopping such a person from rolling up a new Alt, decking it out in some ARable manner (one which would affect their target as well if ARed) and having someone in on it file a report. No. The proposed "feature" is a non-starter. Use what is available. Stop responding/rising to the attempts. If they go the RL route at any point get the proper authorities involved if you're concerned.

Both within SL and here on the forum, such a list is as long or as short as I require it to be at that given moment with the former comprised more of objects (derender/blacklist/scripts/etc) than accounts.

Furthermore what has been taking place is not any sort of 'discussion' ... and every time this comes up, the same users pretend to be aiming for 'discussion' and never do. The same 'suggestions' and 'points of discussion' have been brought up time and time again and each time they have it explained why their idea will not work out, why it is a bad idea ... The entire nine yards. At this point it is clear that they're not looking for a 'discussion' ... and never were.

That's nice. The viable solution is to do exactly as stated by myself and others in this thread. You are ot the system administrator, those are the tools you have, you have had it repeatedly explained to you. Enough is enough. It comes to mind because you're looking at real world stalking (among other things). Congratulations - not the same thing, at all, period. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And with that, I'm not going to bother responding much to either, not in this thread. Find better "arguments" instead of regurgitating the same, tired bits over and over again.

Point blank for those that do not seem to understand: You not being able to see those you have blocked is the entire point of the feature. You have decided you do not wish to interact with/see them. This idea some have of such types (griefers and such) being "loners" is utterly false as well. Having it go both ways is quite pointless on just the above (and all that has been mentioned in this thread) alone. Furthermore it does not extend to anyone around you so the potential ability to cause issues still exists in one form or another. Someone especially invested in causing you problems will circumvent the block and will take things further with each step, especially if they are aware of how it is affecting you. Block, Mute, Derender/blacklist and move right on. Short of canceling your own account or yourself having administrative access to head them off at the pass (good luck), there's nothing else you can do within Second Life itself to combat it. Welcome to reality.

The blocking as is is quite effective - you are blocking them which means you cannot properly see them nor can they properly interact with you anymore. A full Mute and Block turns them gray on your end as well as blocking messages and transactions. If you're using some TPVs you can also opt to Derender/Blacklist an Avatar which wholly removes them from your view. This is all one needs. They can still see you - big whoop. If they're in the same groups as you, they can still see your name in there and when you were last on. Some scripted systems can still report your online status (by design) and some TPVs even still report blocked/muted/derendered/blacklisted avatars as part of their radar systems. Block/mute (and derender/blacklist if using a TPV that supports such) and move on.

At least one TPV has a keyword system that allows you to have that type of functionality @Love Zhaoying - mind, it requires the user to set it up and will only trip on the specified keywords (whole, if set up properly). We do not need the "at" system for Second Life general/local chat.

Duck Duck Go: No results from Google outside of the Forum based profile.

.

Today's peeve: Oh so precious, thin skinned little dearies .....

That's nice. I wasn't addressing you. I was addressing the over the top reactions and responses of some of those who responded. The adult discussion happened in other threads. Answers were given.

I don't frankly care anymore. It was addressed ad nauseum in each and every prior thread. It has been explained that the information that appeared in their original profile system can be accessed by simple enough script calls and is not Private Data of any kind. That version is rather likely too late to claw back from aggregators and other, shadier sites. Linking to the Second Life Search? A nothingburger. The "sales figures" were based on nothing more than what people were buying/what was for sale at the differing shops. Nothing that was presented required special access I'm personally done with the BS. People need to find something that is an actual breach. Until then ...

Respect was given - the respect such reactions deserve. These "concerns" are years too late considering that all one had to do was a simple query on an external search engine to be linked to the Second Life Search utility. If it took this for people to realize just how simple it was to go to that page and run a search without being logged in ... I have very little that is "nice" that I can say to it. I am in no mood for this sort of crap today. I am in no mood to head pat, assuage and pretend to be nicer than I was in my response. This has been possible to do for quite some time and did not require even going to a dedicated site to do so. Shock! Horror!

Seriously though, set your options correctly. Do not bother with the Web Profiles (they're being deprecated/aren't even used in even the main viewer at this point) and any system that still uses those settings is likely on the slate to be altered.

Doesn't matter if it is part of the proposal or not - such a system encourages belittling/shunning/bullying of anyone with a lower score (let alone those who are not social butterflies in general).

The problem with the original system ... is that it existed at all. It is gone. Leave it gone. You want a gamified social rating system? Code it yourself or go to a service that has it. Their only use is as a bullying vector. Period.

There were always "two" channels - the RC has three different sub-channels for testing *gasp* Release Candidates! The RC servers will always get the newer versions of the server code before the main line ones - this is how you "tell" which of the two types you are on (without it being directly disclosed): These servers will also always be fewer in number than the main line. After that, well good luck nowadays because they did indeed stop telling you which sub-channel an RC server is on.