Solar Legion

Knowl, my signature line exists as a means to filter out those whose sole purpose for contact using the Second Life Client (Client, not Viewer) system's internal messaging protocols to verbally attack a person for their opinions. Something which I have had some extensive experience with and have simply grown tired of. Linden Lab will not change their marketing language any time soon Knowl. They want the largest section of users they can get. This includes those who honestly believe that they "live" within the program. Such people cling to the use of the term "Resident" as if it were a life raft. I've dealt with people for whom reality has no meaning. I've dealt with them in various programs, various leisure time activities. They are a prime reason concerning why I do not Role Play with anyone who offers it anymore - I have run into far too many people whose ability to keep a hold on reality is either compromised or simply does not exist at all. It is understandable that, in this light, I am rather vehement when it comes to correcting people who mistakenly believe that they are "residents" of a computer program and server system. I have no problem with users wanting immersion when they are actually using the client program and logged directly into the grid. Keep it away form me however as I am likely to poke a few holes in that immersion baloon ... more or less to remind the user that they don't actually "live" within the program and to keep them from losing all touch with the real world. Here? On the forum? That is a whole different matter. You are not logged into the forums through the client software. It is not a requirement. The 'avatar' you have made to represent yourself on the grid simply does not exist here. Within Second Life? My chosen avatar (when not engaged in the very rare Role Play session) does not maintain the same appearance on a daily basis. Not just the clothing either - the species varies as does all of its aspects excluding gender. I have chosen to have it be a representation of my personal mood, a visual representation of what I am feeling at the time. This visual representation does not live within Second Life. It is not a "resident". It is a mass of electrons and information which tell other client programs what to display for other users to see. I have lost track of the number of times I have had to explain to another user why my avatar changes so often. I have lost track of the number of times I have had to correct a user who has asked me were I "live" in Second Life. The avatar simplt "exists". I - the human being operating the avatar - live in the real and physical world.

Thanks - actually, that'd be rather helpful as that part of the forum software has been an annoyance to me for some time.

Nah - it's been answered. You just don't like the varied answers you've been given. Buyer Beware - remember that next time. While I may not agree with such a practice, you bought the device. You sought it out for its features. You neglected to do proper research. You knew the moment the first alteration occured server side that there was the distinct possibility of your device being diabled. You took this risk. You get to pay the price and deal with your own, poor choice.

Neither. The Bear is there to take up space, the image behind it is part of a destop wallpaper titled "Death", which you can find on Cognitive Distortion. Great place for desktop images.

I can refer to you however I please dear - you are free to intepret it anyway you choose but remember that such an interpetation exists only in the mind of the one reading. Nice bit of Latin, signifying nothing. We are Users - Linden Lab uses the term Residents in a false manner for marketing purposes. You may feel free to use the incorrect term all you want ... Do not state to me what "we" are or are not. I don't deal with fantasy elements when discussing user "responsibility". You can refer to the term "Resident" as a factual and correct term when responding to me when you can prove that you actually live as a mass of electrons, with no physical body.

No dear - it wasn't. Do not ever assume you know what a person's motives are. It was meant to correct you - nothing more and nothing less. How you react is your issue.

I can answer that Dres .... Invariably, those who insist that everyone is a "resident" of Second Life and not a User are those who put so much of themselves into what is going on on their computer screens that they disconnect with reality. Those stories about people who have divorced their spouses to go and live with their "partner", only to later regret it? The people who have had heart attacks over online drama? Those who stalk a user, not just within the program but outside the program? Yeah, those are the sort of people I am talking about and the list just gets larger. I myself learned the hard way that getting too wrapped up in what is on the screen is detrimental to us. I have since gone out of my way to make people who interact with me through the program aware that they may not always be interacting with anything more than a fabrication. While I don't play very many games online much these days, the difference between a fabricated personality and who I actually am is ... quite large and very obvious to anyone with half a brain and firmly grounded in reality. What my Avatar looks like doesn't truly affect how I act when I am being myself - it is used in those instances as nothing more than a visual indicator of my own mood. A simple means of communication. Ceka's example is another reason why i get so up in arms when people insist that everyone is a "resident" - no other service uses the term "Resident" in their Community Standards. Linden Lab must use the proper term (User) in their Terms of Service because the Terms of Service, like an EULA, is worded in an attemptt to be legally binding. No court would accept a ToS document which used the term "Resident". The Community Standards document is internal, so Linden Lab is free to user whatever terms they wish to use to further solidify their marketing spin. There is no seperation between "Account Information" and "User Account Information" - the Avatar cannot create an account. What exists instead? Profile Information: This can be anything at all, be it an insert of your offline details or some elaborate story to turn the Avatar into nothing more than a character in a novel. Account Information: This is all of the information which you entered when you created your Second Life Account. Your username, password, birth date, payment information and other personal details. The Profile exists to become whatever you want it to become. The Account is what contains the Profile and is created by a real, living person. The Avatar is not a living person and cannot create its own account. I hope you understand what I am trying to put across Dres ... It's quite obvious to me that about 98% of those who post here don't and have long ago given up on reality.

If someone does not understand that it is impossible to be a resident within a computer program, they have indeed lost touch with the real world and deserve whatever they get.

Until such a time as a person can truly live as a mas of electronic information within a network, I'll continue to use the correct term. "Virtual Resident" is an oxymoron - Something which is "virtual" is, at its base, not real. I am not trying to dump reality into a virtual situation - I am reminding people what reality is. I am refusing to treat this as something it is not. Solar Legion does not exist - period. Ceka Cianci does not exist - period. Not a single "Avatar" exists outside of the program code. Only those behind the screens exist. Those behind the screens do not live inside the code - If you find that so hard to understand, "Virtual Reality" isn't for you. The moment you begin to believe the hype and marketing terms is the moment you've lost all touch with reality.

It's not an "opinion" - it's a fact. Is your consiousness presently uploaded to a mainframe? No.

No Knowl - it isn't. Your consiousness resides in that bag of flesh which sits at your computer - this is a fact. You can "take responsibility" for your words and "actions" when using the program without this mistaken belief that you "live" in the program. The term "Resident" is a marketing ploy - nothing more and nothing less. How often Linden Lab uses it and where they use it is irrelevant. "Reality" is made up of facts and theories - The facts state that you are a User - not a Resident. I am quite tired of correcting you on this Knowl - and no, people who deal oin facts are not a "minority". We simply do not normally correct others unless we've reached the end of our rope.

Simple - I'm not "discussing" anything nor are there "opposing points" I am sticking to what is factual - not to the marketing ploys and imaginations of those who fall for them and perpetuate them. Please, before asking something so silly, do a bit of thought first - were I interested in a debate, I'd have started a thread to discuss the philosophy surrounding the mistaken use of the term "Resident". Being that I have no desire to discuss the philosophy behind it and insist upon the use of the correct term (users), there is no debate to be had here.

Knowl - you can pontificate all you'd like - there are no "residents" of Second Life- period. You continued attempts to rationalize the use of a marketing term instead of the proper term (Users) simply shows that you're ia hopeless case (and incapable of comprehending when someone states they are not going to debate a particular topic). There are no Residents - this is a fact, there isn't a debate here. BIf you can show (with proof) a single person whose consiousness has successfully been uploaded to Linden Lab's mainframe and whose now electronic consiousness is indisputably alive .... Then and only then can you (or anyone else) claim there are "Residents in" Second Life. Then and only then do you actually have a reason for discussing "civic duty".

I frankly do not care what marketing gimmick Linden Lab uses, Knowl. There are no "residents", period. The standards set are the ToS and CS - that is all. Sad that you need to somehow expand on this.

You don't seem to understand what you're talking about 16, nor do you seem to understand what I am talking about. Your code definition is exactly how it works, right now, with the impossible addition of excluding those outside the "ban lines" who are still within the boundaries of the parcel! The feature is coded for the parcel itself, not for individual sections of the parcel. To recode it otherwise would indeed require a code overhaul - there is no simple way to exclude an avatar which is inside the parcel boundaries from being able to view other avatars on the parcel without a serious overhauling of the parcel, permission and visibility systems. I'd appreciate it if you did not try to respond to me as if I have never dealt with program code before.

There isn't such an option - it would require an overhaul of the existing code and a redefinition of parcel spaces.

Want a private meeting space? Get a messenger. Want a place to change your avatar's appearance? You're SOL unless you can set the parcel to hide your avatar. Problems solved - anything else is a desire to be isolated.

We don't "live" anywhere within the digital space - as I said, I'm not here to "debate" the issue. The "community" is a network of users, nothing more and nothing less.

No - users do not have any "Civic Duty". For crying out loud .... Not a single person posting here is a "tesident" of Second Life - not a single person here actually "lives" in Second Life (no, I'm not going to get into some 'debate' over immersion or any other variation - you do not live inside the coimputer program, period). Our only concerns should be following the ToS, making sure our tier is paid, account subscriptions are paid and that we manage to have a good time. That is it.

Ahem .... My Sony Ericsson Vivaz runs on Symbian, thank you very much .....

The present implementation makes far more sense from a coding standpoint. The option to block sight, sound and text from those outside the parcel functions exactly as intended! The parcel Z coordinate goes up beyond the build height, thus if you are anywhere within the X, Y and Z coordinates of the parcel ... you're IN the parcel. Your only present recourse is to use a security system. While I am thankful that there's even an option like this out there .... I have noticed that those who wish for "privacy" keep pushing for more and more ... To them, I have this to say - I'm sorry: I was not aware that you had a right to hide your very existence. I was not aware you had the right to control other people in an effort to hide yourself. If you value your (Virtual) privacy so much, don't log in.

Aaaaaaand .... it doesn't matter in the long run. What the OP hadn't gotten by the point I'd posted was that the air above a parcel is still a part of the parcel and that the access system only blocks the parcel up to a certain height when public access is shut off.

Even if this has been stated before ... I'll state it again: Generalized ban lines only go up so high on a parcel, even though the code that designates the parcel goes up to and beyond the build ceiling. There is no such thing as being "over" a parcel. This was put in place long ago to allow users to use the "air space" beyond a specific Z coordinate as a fly-through zone.

Knowl - if such were the case regarding the Lab and consent for sharing the logs .... They'd follow the existing state and federal laws. They're trying to supplant these laws in much the same manner as some of the bloggers out there attempt to supplant them (some bloggers will post up the logs simply because they live in one of the many Single Party Consent states/regions .... utterly ignoring the fact that the other participants may live in a Dual/Multi Party Consent state/region) and in so doing make the environment hostile to those who have a legitimate reason to log and distribute a conversation. They have taken a direction which is opposite that of many of the older ISPs and Messengers out there (the ones which allow creation and management of chat rooms) - part of this may well be due to the fact that Second Life is somewhat of a haven for those who truly do believe they can act out without reprecussion. That is something else I have grown very tired of over the years. People like that believe that they should never face any reprecussions for their words or actions ... and will scream bloody murder and demand that those who turn them in be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law (or in the case of Second Life, the ToS/CS). It's sickening. Worse though are those who will outright tell these people that they have concrete evidence in the form of multiple logs! The admins and moderators of these places must know that people exist who will report them and the log source for distribution of these logs the moment they find out. Why would they tell them they have the logs?! Get the logs, request a copy of the accused's logs, examine them all (including the logs of the accused, if they were provided), then ban (or not) based on that information. Do not ever state that you have multiple logs. This is something that goes back to the older, chat service days for crying out loud! Even though it was allowed then ... You never stated you had logs unless you were certain they'd never guess where they were from!

Frankly, that entire section of the Terms of Service needs to go - no, I'm not going to argue this with the crowds of people who would rather send in an Abuse Report for having their foolish crap broadcasted to the administrators and moderators of any given group. You do not get to act like a fool or harass people and expect your words to remain in confidence. You especially do not get to do so when there are state and federal laws which give the right to share these conversations in two distinct manners: Single Party Consent and Dual/Multi Party Consent. Linden Lab needs to adhere to these laws - not atempt to supplant them. I am, quite frankly, sick and tired of people sending in "Abuse" Reports when they are the ones abusing others and the entire system! They get caught, their abuse sent in to those who handle the groups/parcels/sims and then what do these lowlifes do? They rant and rave and further abuse the system by "reporting" the abused for sharing exactly ehat happened, word for bloody word. No, paraphrasing it is not a viable alternative nor is using an exterior method of communication. No, canceling one's account is not a viable means of protest - those stating such can stuff it. If the Lindens don't want you sharing logs within their system, they need to get rid of the ability to make these logs outside of time consuming copy/paste operations. It's that simple folks - parroting the ToS and saying "but, but, but, It's against the ToS" is nothing more than a cop out and an enabler for those who will abuse others, have it reported to those in charge of the venue and then turn around and "report" that their abusive concersation was shared without their consent. Do you seriously believe that verbal abusers are going to give consent for their abusive conversations to be shared