Arielle Popstar

I've had it happen before though was a few months ago. It was a Sat Sale item and even after 30 minutes the item didn't arrive. I sent a NC to the store owner and it took a week to get the item though I could see from the group profile the Creator had come inworld days before that.

What makes certain men dangerous is a lack of a sense of humour and their defensive. They become unpredictable and will often turn on those that triggered that feeling in them. Paddington bear and Winnieh the Pooh don't have those issues.

Haha my first response in the thread was

Well thank you though I missed what was amusing. That happens when some are flaunting their obvious bias.

You're setting a wonderful example of how some men are toxic. Good job!

I was out for a few hours, where can I find the modesty patch examples?

That topic was locked without some insight or clarification being given leaving residents in limbo, Small wonder the questions continue.

Where is it and time?

The problem is that the generic TOS is too ambiguous leaving many questions resulting in a 240 page thread questioning and trying to interpret what LL is meaning.

What would constitute public proof for you? If Governance gives you their version of what happened? Rhetorical question, no need to answer. I realize many prefer not knowing so they can continue to feel safe,

a*eplay does seem to be illegal even in the US though and they are highly sensitive about that here in SL. That goes more into the textual then graphic though so it would be interesting to hear what the US laws say about textual p*rnograhy.

I don't really wish to rehash how I see all of it but suffice it to say that we are expendable even if we number in the thousands because at 50K concurrency SL reaches a limit before going over to being a laggy mess that causes people to start logging out. So they have more residents then they can realistically handle on a busy day. If they think one group is more prone to buy land then another, wouldn't it make sense to prioritize one over the other up to including shooing some out that perhaps don't spend a lot of money? I'm not saying that's the case but it could be a factor. Bottom line is we are expendable from the idea that SL has a plateau and limit of concurrent avatars so that too many affects the efficiency of the grid and so they can easily boot and ban some without it being much of a problem to their bottom line.

Ok keep your head in the sand and continue posting like you know what is going on.

That would take work, not simply talk. The lab seems somewhat averse to that.

Now you're getting it!

Read some of Coffee Pancake's posts then.

No but it analyzes the numbers to make sense of the economics. Any case this is going off topic so what is your point related to the thread? My contention is that individually we don't effect SL's bottom line. If LL makes or saves money in the long term by getting rid of any Child avatars, then they will as they might be looking at it as a mid or long range goal to open the grid to new opportunities.

A little but I do come from a family of accountants. Does that count?

Ok, wasn't sure if it was a euphemism or a parable but you get the gist?

No, most of their money comes from land barons, not individual users. I suspect Land barons can operate on a negative rental income and still make money on tax write offs, but don't quote me.

Yes, keep grazing and pay no mind to the bleating of those being led away to the slaughter.

I remember all your postings of your problems with just being allowed back on those regions. You're a poster child example of how easy it is to get on the wrong side of virtual policing here. Now you trying to tell me its no big deal? It certainly seemed to be at the time and many people in the forum agreed with you.

Most of SL's business is from land, not individual accounts. They can lose a few thousand concurrent accounts and it will barely make a dent for them. Your account is a lot more important to you then it is to them. Make no mistake. We are quite dispensable. I don't think it particularly matters to them. If a bunch of bannings scares people into following the new rules, whatever they may be, then I suspect it is not that big a deal for them. You might be putting a bit too much focus on the L$ spent on content rather then the land sales which makes up a major percentage of their business.

What do you base then on, magical thinking? We have no idea what they do with it. (we do but can't say)

I'm not going to look for it at the moment but Governance has stated in the FAQ that they act on all Child AR's. It is where they feel they are vulnerable and as such have to investigate that they don't miss something. There are so many potential infractions under the new ToS that it would likely not be too difficult for them to find something warranting a ban under the new ToS.