Amethyst Jetaime

You must file a support ticket with LL and be prepared to send them whatever RL documentatoin that they require showing your correct date of birth, such as a birth certificate. They will tell you what they need and where and how to send it. It is hard to believe that people don't know their own birthday. So, don't even think about doing this if you are really a minor in RL. LL takes this very seriously and may ban you.

I extend my deepest sympathy to all the French SL residents as well as all the French people for having to endure yet another senseless terrorist attack that killed so many innocent people. My heart goes out to you. The world must stand with you and together against all extremist that use any religion to justify their heinous crimes. Je tiens ma plus profonde sympathie à tous les résidents de SL Francais ainsi que tous les Francais pour avoir à supporter encore une autre attaque terroriste insensée qui a tué tant de personnes innocentes. Mon coeur va à vous. Le monde doit se tenir avec vous et ensemble contre tous les extrémistes qui utilisent une religion pour justifier leurs crimes odieux. S'il vous plaît excuser les erreurs dans la traduction Francaise. Je ne parle pas de votre belle langue et a dû utiliser un traducteur afin que les non anglophones Francais comprendrait mon message.

My desktop broke down beyond repair after using it SL for five years with good results. Some friends very generously offered to get me a new computer. They gave me a brand new high end gaming laptop. It worked at the time for me because I was having health issues and it was good to be able to take it to the hospital with me. I still have it and use it when I need portability. HOWEVER, I was never so glad when I was able to get a really good desktop that runs the latest SL tech with ease and will for several years before I'll need to upgrade parts as tech improves, which I can do myself. I recommend that unless you have specific issues where portability is of prime importance, get the best desktop you can afford that exceeds the SL minimum requirements. In the long run it will be cheaper for you and last longer than a lappy will.

I really don't care, as my AO and dance HUD works anyway and I don't use any other scripts when at a club. I do like it though when clubs restrict poofers, talking fetuses and gesture HUDs etc, which are annoying and unnecessary. Those that allow scripts can still forbid the use of them by making it a rule. I agree about couple dances too. If a club doesn't have good couple dances to go with their music we leave. There really is no excuse for it as there are some great mocap couple dances out there. It just makes the club owner look cheap. BTW, couple dances are not the same as dancing in sync, which clubs with dance pads seem to think it is.

Not saying you do, but probably just as many men lie to women too in my experience. That said and since you said you want a 'nice girl'... Realize that not all women want a relationship, many may be willing to be your friend only. If you start pushing for more they are gone. Realize that SL is not a dating service either. If you are looking for love or even just a strong relationship, you may find it and it does happen, but not to everyone. Many women, and men too don't 'play' themselves in SL. They are playing a character. It's a form of roll play. Hopefully they are honest up front about it, but many aren't. They see nothing wrong with 'breaking hearts' because this is just a game to them. If you want that, it's fine, but if you want something more like RL find out first what you are dealing with. Don't ask for RL information until you have known the woman a long time. That's scary to most women, including myself. There are a lot of crazy people on the internet that could cause you harm in RL if you give out that information. That is not to say you can't trade that info eventually, or not, depending on the women. Many won't ever give that info out. But if you do get it the woman has to trust you a lot and for a long time. If they are too fast to give it out, probably they are not giving all real information. Next, good friendships and eventually relationships take more time than you think it should apparently. The ones that happen in a few weeks rarely last. A lot of those types are more about the chase then once you start to feel comfortable in it, the other person is ready to move on. The ones that last take sometimes weeks or months to bear fruit. Don't say you just want to be friends and a week or so later start asking about sex, relationships, RL, etc. Again a 'nice girl' will probably be chased away by it. If what you are looking for is a good solid long term relationship it is going to take some time. I've always found that those people who get out, explore, take classes, have fun in places they like rather than meat markets and are genuine will find friendships and maybe even a good relationship or love. You'll meet people with common interests that way and friendships will form naturally.

Word of mouth and recommendations from friends is my way to discover clubs. My friends know my tastes. Once I go to a club a few times, if I like it I'll join their group but turn off notices and IM's because they are always too spammy. When I feel like going to a club I check on the notices page of my groups to see what's going on. Events are probably used mostly now days by new people. Unfortunately only a few will tip and support the club. Most are looking for free L's via contests and cash givaways. It annoys me. I'm there for the music not gesturbating staff urging me to join a contest. That is the reason I don't use events other than to occasionally check to see when a live performer that I like is playing and where.

Theresa Tennyson wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Theresa Tennyson wrote: Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Don't get me wrong. As a sailor myself, I agree it would be better for people not to use ban lines and security orbs unless it is absolutely needed to prevent griefers or harassment. However I defend the right of any land owner to use them because they pay for the land, not vehicle owners, and have the right (privilege, ability, whatever) to use them under the TOS. What part of the TOS allows a landowner to teleport someone without warning? What part of the ToS disallows a landowner to teleport someone without warning? I am not saying that teleporting without warning is ok. It's not. I am pointing out that it is not disallowed by the ToS, so your post is useless. As you can see, the post from Amethyst that I was replying to was specifically concerning "rights under the TOS" - in other words explicit or enumerated rights. She based her argument that security orbs are allowed based on the enumerated right to control access to your lot - however, that says nothing about teleportation because that involves what happens to an avatar when they are no longer on your lot. Therefore, this particular enumerated right wouldn't apply to the act of forced teleportation so I was wondering which of the other enumerated rights forced teleportation would fall under, if any. And that is how language works - assuming, of course, what is said is actually based on a logical argument instead of being a random string of words, and we all know that doesn't always happen. Your splitting hairs. The TOS says nothing about most everything in SL. The TOS explicitly allows certain things and forbids certain other things. Everything not forbidden is allowed. For example: Where for does the TOS allow pixel bumping? Where does it allow you to 'kill' someone resulting in a TP home? Further, there would not be the scripting ability to eject or teleport home if LL objected to that.

Aethelwine wrote: Amethyst Jetaime wrote: It may seem simple to you but not to me. Your vision of that part of SL is a community of people that are free to travel the mainland by foot or vehicle without meeting obstrucitons like security. Other people's SL vision does not match yours. Some people want privacy at home for themselves and friends only. That doesn't make them anit social. Denying someone their vision by saying to move to a private estate, when they pay for premium membership is wrong. It is your vision and your SL. Difficulties instituting zoning may not be as difficult or distruptive as you say. They might develop special software and scripting calls for the mainland servers that would be used for the open zones, thus not disturbing the rest of SL. They've already demonstrated time again that No that is a poor characterisation of my vision. Infact I am quite open to enhanced security for land owners, more tools for hiding, for protecting designated areas are fine by me. The problems on mainland are specifically the aggressive orbs that disrupt vehicles with no warning or justifiable reason (ie that cover a whole parcel and aren't just around builds), and the low level banlines set up on waterways next to protected waterways in such a way they become traps for vehicles. Both ot those are anti-social, it fits the definition perfectly. They disrupt the enjoyment of mainland for the majority of paying land owners who are paying a premium to use those waterways and to go exploring. What I want is to relook at the way the system works so Mainland can better achieve what people as a whole want. Land owners and explorers alike. If the balance can be better achieved than now. Mainland will draw in and sustain ongoing interest and investment. The way money is spent and the way people make use of their orbs both indicate doing this would be something only a tiny minority might object to. RE: the bolded part You don't pay for their land and they are premium members too. Take a look at the premium benefits as published and you don't see anything about rights for members that are vehicle owners and explorers on other peoples land. Under the current TOS, the ONLY waterways or even land open to all is that land that the landowner wants to open and that LL owns. I too would love to see LL strike a balance that makes mainland better for all by having basic zoning. I don't think the people that use ban lines or security orbs are a tiny minority though. BTW, for those that don't know, there is at least one HUD that tells you exactly where ban lines are.

Aethelwine wrote: Rhonda Huntress wrote: Theresa Tennyson wrote: Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Don't get me wrong. As a sailor myself, I agree it would be better for people not to use ban lines and security orbs unless it is absolutely needed to prevent griefers or harassment. However I defend the right of any land owner to use them because they pay for the land, not vehicle owners, and have the right (privilege, ability, whatever) to use them under the TOS. What part of the TOS allows a landowner to teleport someone without warning? What part of the TOS prevents a landowner for teleporting someone without warning? I don't think the TOS really matters, nor does whether the person payig for the land has paid because they can use an orb or not. The issue of interest is what set of rules, would work best for Linden Lab, for Second life, for owners and for explorers. Whilst some land owners on mainland appear to want to unseat and teleport vehicle users home without warning that pass over their parcel, they are a tiny minority (the Wiki article references a survey that establishes that - some time ago admittedly but I don't see any reason to think that situation has changed). The landowners use of the tools at their disposal in this way doesn't add as much if anything to their experience as it detracts from the majority that don't want their journeys disrupted by aggressive orbs. That really is quite simple. The difficulty lies in whether it is actually practicable in any way to effectively change the system for the collective benefit without also having other negative side effects. nerfing the script routines that orbs use might also prevent group roles being designated on group owned land with the ability to kick people causing problems. I am not a scripter, but I see that issue, the practical issue of whether a better system is possible as the barrier to resolving this. Not whether someone has paid or not, or what is or isn't currently in the TOS - I just don't see how those points have any relevance. It may seem simple to you but not to me. Your vision of that part of SL is a community of people that are free to travel the mainland by foot or vehicle without meeting obstrucitons like security. Other people's SL vision does not match yours. Some people want privacy at home for themselves and friends only. That doesn't make them anit social. Denying someone their vision by saying to move to a private estate, when they pay for premium membership is wrong. It is your vision and your SL. Difficulties instituting zoning may not be as difficult or distruptive as you say. They might develop special software and scripting calls for the mainland servers that would be used for the open zones, thus not disturbing the rest of SL. They've already demonstrated time again that

I imagine the legal dept would want to see the custody order that could be legally interpreted to mean you have the sole right to say what he can do or not? In my state, sole custody doesn't necessarily mean the father has no rights. And if it doesn't prohibit something it may be allowed. What does the custody order say about putting or posting their pic in public? If it doesn't say anything the the best way to protect your child and prevent it being posted here or on ANY website is getting a RL judge to give an order against it.

Theresa Tennyson wrote: Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Don't get me wrong. As a sailor myself, I agree it would be better for people not to use ban lines and security orbs unless it is absolutely needed to prevent griefers or harassment. However I defend the right of any land owner to use them because they pay for the land, not vehicle owners, and have the right (privilege, ability, whatever) to use them under the TOS. What part of the TOS allows a landowner to teleport someone without warning? The TOS says nothing about any restrictions on that and LL doesn't enforce it. However I never said that a reasonable warning shouldn't be given either. I agree with that actually as just common courtesy. But I don't think that 'reasonable' includes enough time for vehicles to transport across a larger parcel, unless the landowner sets it up that way.

Theresa Tennyson wrote: Freya Mokusei wrote: Theresa Tennyson wrote: you used the word "rights" in several of your first posts in this thread. I did find one instance of this, sorry. I was trying to use privileges and abilities for reasons I think I've made clear, that instance was an error. I've no interest in word games - no-one gets any rights from Linden Lab, I didn't claim otherwise. Theresa Tennyson wrote: Ban lines have gone up to 4096 meters for years Well, then okay. I don't know if this correction changes my point, but I doubt it. My point and perspective was: Until enforcement changes, these are the terms Mainlanders live under. It's not reasonable to demand others accomodate your use of the platform at a cost to themselves. Users expecting a predictable/reliable flying (or other land-requiring activity) experience should be prepared to spend money in order to maintain that experience (e.g. a tax or tier), just as landowners do. Hope that's clear. I used to live on a private island but I moved to the Mainland (using a Premium account) largely because I wanted the opportunity to travel long distances with various vehicles. In other words, I'm paying for the privilege of travel, including to and between areas specifically designed and provided for vehicle users by Linden Lab which I do not own but which my tier goes to pay for. Sorry but the published benefits, not rights, of premium members don't mention this at all. You do have the ability to travel on LL owned land and on land that the landowner allows. People who pay mainland tiers that don't allow it have that right under the TOS. Period.

Aethelwine wrote: Ban lines only work up to about 70m not 770... The reason for that would seem to be to allow air traffic.. I don't see how that setting can be seen in any other way. The conundrum would seem to be that for parcels to be rented and protected from griefers there needs to be a way to instant eject them. With that functionality comes the ability to make instant eject orbs. If there is a way to accommodate privacy and a freedom to explore it is worth debating and implementing because it would revitalise mainland. As it is the areas sought after people are prepared to pay for are those with the best transport routes. Land values show what people want and are the key to the future success of mainland Don't get me wrong. As a sailor myself, I agree it would be better for people not to use ban lines and security orbs unless it is absolutely needed to prevent griefers or harassment. However I defend the right of any land owner to use them because they pay for the land, not vehicle owners, and have the right (privilege, ability, whatever) to use them under the TOS. I've always thought that mainland would really benefit from zoning via covenants. LL could set the zones, commercial, residential, ban lines and orbs or not, as well as some building codes. Then allow a land trade for people to move to a like size and location parcel in the zone of their choice. The lab may have to do a bit of terraforming to accomplish this. New landowners could buy land in their choice of zones too. Then people who want absolute privacy wouldn't have to hear people claim a 'right' to use vehicles on their land and people that want or feel a right to open land could use those zones that allow it. Of course LL would have to have some protection against griefers in open land by either disabling certain scripts commonly used by griefers or by strict and immediate response when called on by people in the area. Or maybe there are other ways. If there is no way to accomplish this or LL won't cooperate then they can expect this often repeated debate to continue ad nauseum, unhappy vehicle owners and landowners who are told what they should not do, as well as vast swaths of empty main land that no one wants.

Perrie Juran wrote: Amethyst Jetaime wrote: <snip> I think consumers are smarter than a lot of people give them credit for. Those that read reviews can see when a review offers honest specifics they should consider, or not. </snip> A problem here is reviews written by people who don't understand how things work in SL being read and believed by people who don't understand how things work in SL. Then they probably can't make sense of most products or descriptions either or they are newbs looking for freebies. :smileywink:

Aethelwine wrote: The wiki goes a little further: "The property right cannot be disputed, however a too fast teleporting from a parcel can be considered an abuse" citing Resolved Questions in Abuse and Griefing , I am not sure why they include that citation. I would take that to mean that an orb set (to cover full parcel height and not just around a skybox?) such that it doesn't give sufficient time for a vehicle to pass through the parcel is Abuse Reportable. I have never tried to do that, but I can't really see any other reasonable interpretation of those words. If they did enforce that based on reports, it would strike the right balance between privacy and the freedoms they talk about for people to explore mainland in vehicles. Any resident can write a wiki page. I tried to follow your link to Resolved Questions in Abuse and Griefing to see if a Linden wrote it and kept getting an error. Please fix it. I did search the wiki for that and could find nothing. Also searched for Abuse and Griefing and that page said: "These articles are part of the Second Life Old Knowledge Base. They are no longer maintained by Linden Lab. Use at your own risk! For additional up-to-date information on Abuse and Griefing, see the Official Knowledge Base." The current Official Knowledge Base says nothing of the sort that I could find.

Theresa Tennyson wrote: Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Theresa Tennyson wrote: In real life, your property rights don't extend to the airspace above your land higher than you can reasonably use. Given that gravity is optional in Second Life this makes things trickier and I have no problem with security systems that allow a reasonable travel time since people build skyboxes, but Mainland was specifically intended to be a shared space that could be traveled through - in fact in its early years you couldn't even teleport directly and had to fly around to reach certain places. In RL you are right, because of government restrictions that all must adhere to. No such restrictions exist in SL. Also it is not practical for people to use all the space above there land as it's impossible to have skyboxes and building platforms and such there. In SL all the airspace is usable by the land owner. The early days of SL have past and technology for teleporting changed. I have never seen anything written by LL supporting your theory of that "Mainland was specifically intended to be a shared space that could be traveled through". If they thought that everyone would still have to teleport to telehubs and then travel where they wanted to go on foot or by flying. Then why did they write the parcel access code so that turning off public access only worked up to a certain height when it would have been simpler to just have it go all the way up? Most likely so people could protect their privacy below that but allow flights above IF they chose to do so. If LL did want it to be a rule though, why isn't in the TOS and why aren't they removing security orbs?

Hire someone to put the top back on after you use it? :smileywink:

I'm very busy in SL and on other grids so it depends on what I am looking to buy and how much time I have to find it. I don't particularly like shopping in SL or RL I'm more of a get it and go shopper. Sometimes I make clothes for myself or clients too. I must keep my avatar up to date and I need a very varied wardrobe. My own business interests and my partners, which I sometimes am involved with, require that I have professional, formal, club and casual wear. There are a few designers I really like and will go there first when I need clothes, either in their shops or on MP. However, when I have time I'll check out both places for new designers.

Just to add... It is against the TOS to sell Lindens to anyone privately. If you do you can be banned for it. The Lindens must keep records of all your transactions and report the total RL cash you receive to the IRS if it is above a certain amount, whether you are a US resident or not. LL must comply with US law on this or face serious sanctions. Note that just because your transactions are reported, doesn't mean you owe taxes on it. If you are not a resident of the US, even if you don't owe taxes to the US, you may owe taxes in your country. Taxes are a complicated subject and taxes for non residents and tax treaties with other countries are even more so. Consult your own tax adviser to answer any other questions you have about this. You can read more about when and what tax information LL may require here.

As a merchant and consumer, I don't think everything deserves five stars which should only be reserved for the truly outstanding. As a consumer, I think any merchant that wants to cuss someone out for a well rounded review with constructive criticism only as well as mentioning good points, is missing the boat to improve their product. Cussing a customer is only shooting yourself in the foot because customers do talk to other people. As far as personal reaction if it happened to me, I'd let it roll off my back without getting upset. However I'd revise my review to warn people about the anger issues. As a merchant on MP, I wouldn't be upset to get less than 5 stars. If it offered constructive criticism or pointed out specifics they didn't like, I'll take it to heart. If it were just a personal attack I'd flag it to remove it. I think consumers are smarter than a lot of people give them credit for. Those that read reviews can see when a review offers honest specifics they should consider, or not. I think that merchants who really care about not getting 5 stars should comment on the review as well as give clear reasons why they think it should get 5 stars.

Theresa Tennyson wrote: In real life, your property rights don't extend to the airspace above your land higher than you can reasonably use. Given that gravity is optional in Second Life this makes things trickier and I have no problem with security systems that allow a reasonable travel time since people build skyboxes, but Mainland was specifically intended to be a shared space that could be traveled through - in fact in its early years you couldn't even teleport directly and had to fly around to reach certain places. In RL you are right, because of government restrictions that all must adhere to. No such restrictions exist in SL. Also it is not practical for people to use all the space above there land as it's impossible to have skyboxes and building platforms and such there. In SL all the airspace is usable by the land owner. The early days of SL have past and technology for teleporting changed. I have never seen anything written by LL supporting your theory of that "Mainland was specifically intended to be a shared space that could be traveled through". If they thought that everyone would still have to teleport to telehubs and then travel where they wanted to go on foot or by flying.

 Section 4.8 of the TOS (which you agreed to when you signed up) says: You may permit or deny other users to access your Virtual Land on terms determined by you. This includes all the space above it or LL would be removing security orbs. Buying an airplane does not give you any pass to fly where ever you want to. End of discussion.

Facebook has a policy that only RL people can have a page there that give RL info. No avatars are allowed. Many have had there FB page for their avatar deleted I know. Others that tend to have RL names for their avatar may not, unless they are reported or FB hasn't found them yet. You can use your RL information to start a business page there though under your SL name to use to promote it.

No not generally. I'm too busy and when I want to watch SL shows I do it in RL, but even there not everyday or even every week. We do have a monitor in our SL home, but only use it once in a great while to watch movies together that we want to share. I will rarely watch a SL shows, such as an interview with Linden's about important topics or developments in SL but mostly do it via a website. You will not really get an accurate assessment of who watches SL shows here as just a very small percentage of SL people come here and even a smaller percentage post. Those that do post tend to be much more involved in creating things or other SL activities than watching SL shows is my guess.

Only if the developed sim is cheaper than any others you can find.