Toysoldier Thor

Ziggy21 Slade wrote: Freya Mokusei wrote: I'm quite happy with this. Quarterly stats ever since 2009 had basically turned into the following:- Read stats 'Outrage' that the definitions of the stats have changed again. "The sky is falling omg!" Life as normal. Maybe now we can skip from step 3 to 4 one final time and stop pretending that anyone was able to make business decisions based on the vague aggregated stats. I'm looking forward to more focussed, useful reporting abilities for those that utilise SLM or in-world locations. I agree, it's strange how the posters here who are most disturbed by the discontinuation of the statistics are the ones who have fervently and consistently claimed in the past that those same statistics are a bunch of lies (or words to that effect). Toy in particular wrote lengthy blog posts, dissecting, dismissing and re spinning every aspect of the last report to his own weird doom and gloom agenda. Every single part of it was apparently either a fabrication or a sign of imminent disaster. This thread is a perfect illustration of why the statistics are in fact of no use, the reaction to 'no economic report' is the pretty much identical to the reaction to all previous economic reports i.e. LL are trying to conceal impending doom. The only reason I believe any of the doom and gloom mongers even care is because now they have one less thing to complain and create drama about. As I already did mention in this thread and that Ziggy pointed out, yes I did make a very long blog posting to show how badly LL spun or downplayed the bad news stats that were in the released quarterly results. And I pointed out how some of the posted statistics had little value based on its context. And unless anyone wants to read my blog posting and its observations / opinions and debate that they were illogical or invalid, then painting a negative slant on my blog has little relevance to the points being made in this thread. I stand by my blog. Secondly, the observations and points made in my blog were not rare / uncommon observations of the LL quarterly stats. In fact, I challenge Ziggy or anyone else that feels my comments were out-of-norm from the general consensus of the SL Population / Observers / Bloggers / Forum Posters of the same stats that I blogged. You all are making it sound like my past comments on past LL Quarterly results were generally a negative attack on what would generally be considered a good news report. If this is true.... prove it. Finally, you are all once again missing the point that is being made in the thread. It doesnt matter if the quarterly results were good or bad or what the general opinion was on the quarterly results..... the point is that LL has decided for no specific logical reason at all to STOP RELEASING ITS SL GRID HEALTH RESULTS. If they did... the logical question and related fear is.... WHY? LL has endured criticisms of their results in the past and still released. Why did they decide to stop? and since the results are no longer available to the public, one has to reasonably suspect that it was because this quarter's results would have showed that the already negatively trending stats on a declining SL Grid was declining much faster. It would have likely shown that: the pace of SL sims being abandoned is increasing faster than a linear pace. the marketplace sales were flat or even declining over past Year / Quarter and/or that the sales are not a net positive to the inworld transactional sales (i.e. it would prove what most of us have already realized that MP is eroding inworld sales and having a negative impact on inworld sim usage - closings of stores and malls) Rodvik's arrival as CEO has done nothing to stem the decline in SL resident registrations and hours logged in. This is likely the reason that LL stopped reporting. It would have proven that Rodvik was not the miracle man to turn LL's SL service decline around. And as was pointed out before, since LL is not hiding these quarterly results and that logical assumptions / concerns like was mentioned above would naturally occur, then LL has to understand that their decision to hide these results (even if they are bad news) will only further reduce confidence on many that want to consider investing in LL's SL service. Maybe many of you all think this is a responsible move made by LL to stop reporting quarterly results. Maybe many other RL companies should take LL's lead and stop reporting results of their business activities when the results are just getting so bad that they want to avoid criticism. That sounds like such a wise idea that some of you are endorsing here.

Although I understand all that you have said Dart.... and I would agree that a lot of the LL Quarterly facts and figures were obscure and/or spun positively (I did a whole blog entry on this), you are forgetting one big factor that cannot be overlooked. If the quarterly report is helpful, useless, positive, negative, etc.... there is one thing that it has been consistently..... IT WAS RELEASED EVERY QUARTER! The fact that LL decided all of a sudden that they did not want to release this information anymore say more than the facts that would have been in the report. What message it sends which is very dangerous is... LL IS IN BIGGER TROUBLE THEN ANYONE ALREADY THOUGHT ! THEY HAVE TO NOW HIDE THEIR CURRENT STATE ! What message they are sending out to anyone that is investing in THE GAME is ... maybe now is not the time to buy a sim. Maybe its not wise to invest weeks / months of time and month developing content for SL. Maybe learning Mesh is a waste of time if LL is potentially so unstable that they have decided to hide their quarterly stats. Dart, you know as well as I know that regardless of anyone's opinions on the actual value of the quarterly states, PERCEPTION IS REALITY. So all your points are moot to the bigger issue.

Daniel Voyager wrote: No more quarterly or annual Second Life economy reports, says Lab “We don’t plan to publish a Q4 2011 economic summary. We are discontinuing regular reporting of aggregate economy-level data, because landowners and merchants have told us that the information is of limited value to them. Moving forward, we will instead focus on improved reporting tools that help individuals better manage their businesses in SL.” TRANSLATION.... "Each of our quarterly results are getting more and more negative and shows how LL's SL business is eroding. And unfortunately even with out spinning of the results is not tricking the smart SL residents that can read the truth in the results we put out. So its better that we dont show the bad news for everyone to see and critique."

Thank you very much. I am glad it is helping someone. It helps me personally as well. By forcing myself to document each minor step, it forces me to really strongly understand the process and find glitches in the workflow. Also, since I am getting old and forgetful and I am into so many different things - I now have detailed steps that I can use in the future in case I get rusty as well. As for your question, I am starting to appreciate this difference more and more.... but there are two ways in Zbrush to deal with multiple objects in a model. I want to point out right now that I am FAR FROM A ZBRUSH EXPERT so this so far how I understand things in Zbrush.... POLYGROUPING - the model's subcomponents are very tightly coupled and pretty much work together as a single model. The polygroups you define are basically defined PARTS of the whole. As such, when you UV map, you will end up with a single map with several islands. You can still texture each polygroup BUT when you create a corresponding texture map you are basically changing part of the ONE texture. Also, with polygroups its not easy and near impossible to do advanced editing of one polygroup in the model. _ SUBTOOLS - This is when each object in the model is pretty much completely independent. In the utterly poor terminology of Zbrush it is called SUBTOOLS (sub models) with a TOOL (model). And to spin your head even more with Zbrush's stupid terminology .... the zbrush utility sub-menu is called the SUBTOOL menu with the TOOL menu. In this menu is where you can add, select, and delete subtools from the tool. A subtool that is selected can be edited and worked on as if it was its own TOOL. This includes that when you do a UV map for a Tool with many SUBTOOLs, you get a UV map for each one. The problem is that - so far for me - its hard to make these subtools work together as one. In both methods you can ultimately get the TOOl (model) exported to collada and off to SL. so as far as I understand it - which you use depends what you are creating for SL. For the most part I understand that POLYGROUPS is more intuitive to work with to texturing and working the model as one - but its a pain to edit each polygroup physics and positioning. Again... if there are Zbrush experts, they might be able to provide more insight.

jamie Cheeky wrote: No idea why but after a major revamp of my store (it was kinda dormont for 3 years) my sales have started to fade - ive been creating new stock like a fool keeping prices low and hardly selling a thing - messing with the land description has probably not helped but man its getting to the point that I'm finally going to say Im beat after 5 years of having the store can any one give me some clues as to what im doing wrong? or any hints please would be gratefully appreciated! To help identify what the root cause to your inworld sales issue could be, a critical input is some kind of historical sales trend yo ucould build up from your past sales records (if you keep transaction details which I would think after being in business in SL for 5 years you likely have lots). If you could graph you sales inworld over the past 3 months as weel as over the past 18 months.... Did you notice a similar sales slump last year around the same time (even if not as severe)? Did you notice on your daily / weekly sales volumes a normal predictable sales level and then a major shift in these daily/weekly sales volumes on a specific day or week? If you did notice a significant change - I likely know the answer but - did your sales volumes stay at this new level or has it been fluctuating? If you did... lets say it was on January 15th.... this gives you a time range to think back if there was something you did on that date. Chances are if you did (like you said maybe that was the day you adjusted the land description or stopped a long standing promotion or....) then it could be the root cause to the issue. If nothing yo ucan think you did then what possible things did LL do around that date? Hope that helps.

I know and have heard what many SL Residents want - i.e. to be left alone and not visible to anyone if and when they want to be. But this is not legally an enforceable PRIVACY that LL "MUST" develop regulations, policies, and enforcement of. And that is the argument brought up here when someone said that the script in question IS a violation of Privacy. Its not a legal violation of privacy ... its just a violation of an old outdated and weak "pretend I am not here" privacy that LL put in the viewers long time ago but that every SL Resident has known for a long time how to bypass - with or without this new policy and breaking of the LSL script. All you have to do is ping an avatar via IM and depending on the respone, you know right away if the person is just hiding from you or really not logged in. No one arguing that LL should find a better and more fool proof method that allows a specific Avatar account to look as if they are not online when they actually are. They current idea is STUPID. LL must however protect their customer's private / person / RL information and their Customer's right to anonymity from the avatar. I was giving you examples and you took it completely out of context. So I will say it a bit differently... IN GENERAL... LL must have policies and strictly enforce and protect their customers from any attempt by someone to extract and collect one of their customer's personal private information... such as IP address, RL name, email address, etc. the posterchild example of a massive violation of this protection that LL took far to long to respond to although they finally did the right thing was REDZONE. So... when you posted the following.... This is very likely the reference of PRIVACY that LL has been referring to if they are wrapping new and stronger Corporate policies around it. The reason behind this heightened LL interest in PRIVACY is to protect LL itself from possible future RL Government scrutiny on how LL is addressing their legal obligations to protect their customer's Privacy rights) VERY unlikely. I'm not an expert by any means when it comes to scripting, but even a fifthgradercan see the llRequestAgentData does not return your IP address, your home phone number, your social security number, a copy of any of your intellectual properties or your wedding pictures. You mentioned something similair yourself. You can't honestly think LL believes this function change will make a difference for the very narrow and specific description of privacy you use and you can't honestly think LL think they can change the function just for the hell of it then use a made up excuse for doing so. Customer care can always be better, SL is no exception, but blaming LL for bullying some random merchants and clubowners doesn't sound very likely. You completely misunderstood the point I was making. In no way was I suggesting that the script being broken had the ability to extract such information. I was trying to tell you what information LL must protect of their customers. AND SURELY your online status is not one of them.

Pamela Galli wrote: The discussion in this forum: Pamela said: And can we have an amen that LL will not promote a handful of mesh businesses and call it mesh education? And Charlar replied: You know what? I'll give you an amen to that. We want everyone to be on a modern (read: mesh enabled) viewer, building and buying things that are more efficient and better looking, therefore continuing to make the grid an interesting place. Charlar You know very well Pamela that LL has a history of promoting people and their businesses that LL likes or considers friends. So it would not be surprising if LL would hand pick a few mesh creations from those they know & like with no bidding whatsoever to offer any Mesh creator a chance to be promoted as well. This is just how LL has always played the game. Why stop now.

Innula Zenovka wrote: According to Kelly Linden's post over in the Scripting forum, the simple bug fix -- make llRequestAgentData respect preferences set in the viewer -- isn't quite as simple to implement as one might wish. I think it may very well be the case that LL should look at developing a proper "offline mode" (that you can set both before log-in and while online) on the lines of SVC-7052 and leave llRequestAgentData alone for the time being, while keeping the new prohibition on using the function in TPVs, at least, to circumvent people's settings. I totally agree with this statement. What LL needs to do is for a "I want to be left alone" "I dont want anyone to know I am online" function to be moved as a server function. A parameter in the AVATAR table should be "INVISIBLE STATE" that can be set by any means by the account holder to be YES or NO. Then LL could modify all dependent code around this parameter so that it must query this parameter before executing the action that would reveal this avatar's status. Its not really REVEALING an avatar's status that we are talking about though. What SL residents want is the ability to PRETEND THAT HE/SHE IS OFFLINE without any way of discovering the real truth elsewhere. And Residents want this function to be an individual OPT IN and not a global banning of the ability to query.

Kwak, Your english dictionary definitions of "PRIVACY" in your posting was a good artistic slant on the discussion of what LL was referring to regarding LL's recent policy changes to strengthen their almost legal interest in protecting PRIVACY but these common dictionary terms are not the definitions that are commonly used or in scope to the LEGAL description of Privacy. Several countries and government agencies have and/or are developling laws to protect individual's rights to privacy and this definition of privacy has little to do about what you described.... i.e. its not about your rights to be left alone. It more centers around what I was posting... its about the level of rights an individual has to keep his/her personal information PRIVATE (i.e. not available for public use or redistribution without this person's prior knowledge and permission) as well as the rights of the individual request from any users of this information how their information is used and being handled. This is very likely the reference of PRIVACY that LL has been referring to if they are wrapping new and stronger Corporate policies around it. The reason behind this heightened LL interest in PRIVACY is to protect LL itself from possible future RL Government scrutiny on how LL is addressing their legal obligations to protect their customer's Privacy rights) Now, in many Privacy laws and acts there are stipulations as to what is deemed private and not private personal information, but generally the line is drawn around personal information that typically is not readily available on public records or that cannot be easily be discovered by common information collection means. If the personal information can easily be discovered without the individual having to release the information him/herself then its generally not consider PRIVATE Personal data that is covered under the laws. This aspect of many laws in some cases can be a blurry line for some types of data where as other data is clearly on one side of the line or the other. For example, my full name is NOT considered private data that would be covered in most privacy laws. But, my social insurance number IS considered private data that I have rights to protect. LL operates in the USA and my understanding is that US laws on individual's rights to protect their private information is far lower than countries like Canada where I live. Although US privacy laws are much weaker - they are the laws that LL must be sure to uphold. BUT, LL is also dealing with an even more blurry line on Privacy... they need to ensure that they are protecting their RL Customer's private data from public access but they are not likely legally obliged to protect much of the information about a virtual character in a video game / virtual world - for a few reasons. A couple that come to mind is that a virtual character / avatar likely has no legal rights nor is recognized as a legal individual in any courts - therefor how can privacy laws be applied to a non-legally defined entity. Secondly, the virtual charactor is not 100% attached to a single RL individual - i.e. I can give my account and passowrd to another person, share it, give it away, abandon it, etc. So who's RL identity would I really be protecting? As such, my logic on why online status of an avatar is NOT in scope of information that LL need to protect under the definition of privacy is that an avatar's online status has no risk ot violating a LL RL Customer's right to protect his/her private information. LL must be sure to protect its customers from having their IP Address, RL Name behind the Avatar, or email address harvested by others without their consent but for LL to shut down the ability for anyone to query on an avatar's online status does not fit in this scope. What LL wants to do is remove a valuable legit function that is used for countless legit reasons and not a concern by most SL account holders to protect the interests of a few. What LL could have done about ONLINE STATUS is improve the function of the SL Service and Viewers that allows a SL customer the option of becoming fully invisible if they want to. But Kwak, the fact that in RL you are entitled to draw your curtains or can unplug your phone from the wall to give you some personal privacy has nothing to do with any legal rights of a service to protect those actions in a virtual world. And a virtual world provider like LL should not allow anyone to have windows or access to a phone directory simply because you want to cover YOUR windows or unplug YOUR phone. Now I know there are a couple SL Forum bullies that like to attack me by picking apart statements I make (she knows who she is) so I will finish my posting by making this statement.... Everything I posted here is only my personal summarization, description and interpretation of the topic based on my RL experience having to work with the Canadian Privacy Act and when designing I.S. systems where the customer's collected / used personal information has to be classified and then protected if the data is deemed private.

Zanara Zenovka wrote: Toysoldier Thor wrote: Zanara Zenovka wrote: Toysoldier Thor wrote: I know some SL Residents dont care if Viewer Tagging and Color Tagging were to go but that does not dismiss that others find it valuable. Zanara stated earlier that she is happy to see it go. I said no such thing. Learn to read or stop making things up, whichever deficiency accounts for your constant fabrications. And right from the horse's mouth in this thread of you being happy to see a menace go away (menace to you but likely not to others).... Toysoldier Thor wrote: Actually it that they are braking Viewer Tags this week. online status is in the next couple weeks but he wasnt sure. Just as well - those high-speed viewer tags racing all over the grid are a serious menace! WOW. Just...Wow... OK, lets spell it out for the back of the bus... Your typo: "braking" (ie, to slow down vs "breaking") Derived puns: "high-speed", "racing all over" + Hyperbole: "serious menace" = Absurdity: "...high-speed viewer tags racing all over the grid are a serious menace!" ie, It's a joke, Joyce. Sometimes the fail is so epic, it's an achievement in itself. LOL ahhh that is the Zanara we all know and love..... Petty shots to cover up her own OOPSIESSS.... To all the others on theis thread..... remember my definition of a LL Cheerleader that I have had to deal with in the past and present..... Welcome to Zanara... the current leader of the cheerleaders. Keep on taking stabs Z.... it just means you still love me ROFL! Your posting already proved I was right. Not go back to your other threads and leave us to get back on topic.

Qie Niangao wrote: Showing online status is indeed a violation of privacy No, it's really not. When Redzone was leaking RL IP addresses associated with SL agents, that was (at least arguably) a privacy violation. Showing online status, and doing so despite having a UI element purporting to disable it, is misleading for those who don't know better, and a significant inconvenience for some who do. If they can close all the ways that happens, it might be a good thing, but the only "privacy" that would protect is role-played. Protecting pretend privacy indeed might be a good business decision for LL. It may make more people use the service. It's just not anything like the sort of thing that got Google a 20-year FTC babysitter. Totally agree on this point and I disagree with the statement from Feldspar. Being able to know if an Avatar is or is not ONLINE is NOT a privacy issue. "PRIVACY" is technically the ability protect your personal content that is not normally public knowledge information. Examples of this would be protection against being able to ask for and receive an Avatar's source IP address (like what RedZone completely violated), an Avatar's account email address, RL name and address etc. The fact that I am SL ONLINE or not is NOT private information. Your RL identity is not compromised or exposed because I can find out that you are online. The state of your Avatar is not a peice of private information. If this is true then LL's policy should not only ban the ability to know an Avatar is online... under this policy no one should also be able to know your status is BUSY or AWAY. These are also States of the Avatar. So - a STATE OF AN AVATAR IS NOT A PRIVACY ISSUE. Now, it would be a NICE FEATURE (not a mandatory law) that a SL Account holder could opt in to the ability to PRETEND that I am offline when I really am not. And this sorta already exists even though most SL users know how to easily check by other means if you are pretending to be offline. But the point is that this should be an OPTIONAL FEATURE for each user and not a mandatory law that impacts all users - most of whom dont care that their online status is known. So lets not jump on the bandwagon of LL's that the state of an avatar is an element of avatar data that must be deemed PRIVATE information. ITS NOT!

Try applying a TEXTURE MAP checkerboard texture on the model. There are a couple of them in the Zbrush default list of textures. To do this you go into the TOOL-> TEXTURE MAP and make sure the Texture is ON and then click the texture and select the UV Map checker texture.... if your have proper UV on your model then that checkerboard should go across the seem nicely. At least that is how I understand that. tell me how it goes.

My non-expert thoughts would be that the UVMaster process of creating the UVs might have mucked up a bit. But so far I have not had 1 issue with the UVMaster. It is rock solid. So you polypainted at very high rez UVMaster - Made a Clone Copy UVMaster - UV All ( you can check now if the UVs look ok - Flatten it and Check Seams to see where UVmaster put the seams) UVMster - Copy UV switch back to your main high rez model UVMaster - Paste UV Then you would go to Tools - UV and pick 1024 and then Texture Map "copy from polypaint" and this causes a distorted texture seam ?

LOL I wish I were smart enough in technology to even be considered to be on the Emerald crew or any TPV crew for that matter. But yess... how did Emerald go under with 1000's of staff on board? lol

Anaiya Arnold wrote: Cincia Singh wrote: Imagine someone using terms like "boneheaded" "irresponsible" "naive" "inept" and "careless" to describe the work WE do at our RL jobs when they don't have a clue about everything we do and how we have to do it due to our workplace rules. What value would we put on that person's opinion? Would that approach make us want to help them with their problems? What value should I place on my customer's opinion, however ill-informed? Well to get that answer you merely have to ask, "how much do I value having a solvent company or job?" However much you value a solvent business and job, that's how much value you ought to put on your customers' opinions and level of satisfaction. LOL.... you beat me to the point. Basically what I would have said. The employee of a company that openly criticizes the displayed anger and attitude of their customer as opposed to READING & UNDERSTANDING the source of the messages coming to the company and being more retrospective as to WHY a customer could be so openly furious at the company...... This is a company with a culture that is clearly in the early immature stages of corporate culture and still believes that their customers should bow to them for their amazing products and services they brought to the market. A culture that still sees the customer as a burden to them - not the ones that ultimately puts a paycheck in their employee's hands. It also speaks loads as to why even LL Sr. Management pulls of actions like Oz's recent Privacy / TPV policies with very little understanding as to the true impact to his decisions. Cincia..... your posting makes all the sense in the world coming from the LL culture.

Baloo Uriza wrote: Toysoldier Thor wrote: Although the statement is true in ripping a 2D image from a screen of a game... (and I will state now that I could be wrong on this) without access to the opensource VIEWER code that can be corrupted for maliscious purposes and then login to the 3D world of SL where the Viewer would directly receive - not 2D information from the server but 3D object data from the server of objects the viewer see inworld, how can someone COPYBOT 3D content simple from seeing the 2D displayed representation of the object. The 3D wireframe and textures still exist in VRAM in decoded form. It's not a 2D image until it hits your monitor. For things to work like you think they work, everything would have to be rendered prior to sending it to your system over the Internet. Understood but then why has all copybotting incidents that I always read about and know about in SL pertain to it coming from a users of a corrupted copybotting version of the opensource code when they could have been much more stealthy and just taking the data from the VRAM using LL Viewer and not be banned because of the viewer they were using? You would think it would be the dumbest form of SL copybotting to use an easy to identify copybotting viewer when you know many stores and sims will ban you. I suspect that the mesh data sent to your VRAM in your system technically could be used as a place to get the critical 3D mesh information that would then have to be brought back into SL and turned back into SL Content. But if this is possible - it must be so complicated that its generally not worth the effort to steal content. From all I read about CopyBotters on SL... the tool used most often is corrupted opensource viewer code. Restrict development access to the code of the viewers that could log into SL and I would strongly suspect the % of copybotting would drop dramatically. Obviously not ZERO but to a level that it would not come up weekly on the Merchant threads as a topic.

Baloo Uriza wrote: Deej Kasshiki wrote: Any information displayed on your screen can be intercepted at a very low (hardware) level and copied. That's been true for any format, anywhere at any time. As Rob Malda once said, quite accurately, on an episode of Slashdot Radio about 10 years ago when the DMCA was still being debated in congress, "If you can view it, you can copy it." Although the statement is true in ripping a 2D image from a screen of a game... (and I will state now that I could be wrong on this) without access to the opensource VIEWER code that can be corrupted for maliscious purposes and then login to the 3D world of SL where the Viewer would directly receive - not 2D information from the server but 3D object data from the server of objects the viewer see inworld, how can someone COPYBOT 3D content simple from seeing the 2D displayed representation of the object. i.e. if I have a legit LL or TVP viewer in SL and I can see the dress on your avatar.... I clearly can see the design and I clearly can take a snapshot of the dress you are wearing. But unless I can get direct access to the 3D data feed that the legit viewer code is receiving from the sim server that tells the viewer how to display layers of 3D objects from a 2D perspective.... how will I be able to STEAL or COPYBOT the dress on your avatar and copy it and sell an illegal version of the 3D content back in SL? Please educate me how the statement "If you can view it, you can copy it." works for stealing 3D content from a 2D view.

CommerceTeam Linden wrote: We apologize for the confusion about what will be launching. Here is a clarification: Direct Delivery will launch with all Direct Delivery purchases going to the Received Items folder. We will be speaking with Residents to get feedback before we release any ADDITIONAL changes that result in objects being sent to the Received Items folder. NOW THAT is what we wanted to hear. Thank you!

Perrie Juran wrote: I don't want to know when my friends are on line. Awww you are cheating!!! I thought this was only for Commerce Team.... Well I also DONT WANT anyone to be able to tell I am online. I dont want the ability to know if anyone else in SL is online. I dont want anyone else to know what version of Viewer I am using!! I mean the ability to see if I am online and what viewer I am using is an utter fundamental violation of my virtual avatar's privacy and I can only think of countless ways of how these SL exposed violations risks my RL personal rights to privacy. I am shocked that LL has allowed all us residents of these 8 years to be able to exist with these privacy violations in place. So... I dont want LL to continue to let any residents in SL know ANYTHING ABOUT MY AVATAR. In that light I demand that Oz Linden develop additional policies that remove my Rez Date and any other information in my profile. And since LL needs to protect me and all other SL residents from dangers we dont even know we should be protected from.... I DONT WANT LL to provide the Avatar Profile function. Get rid of it. To many Avatars can use it improperly and reveal too much information about themselves and risk their own privacy... we cannot allow this!

Ohhh the things that I dont want LCT (LL Commerce Team) to do or touch or even think of... where does one begin. A top priority for me is that LCT never ever think about making any more improvements on MP Store/Product statistics & Reporting. Merchants have absolutely no need to understand which products of theirs in MP are being looked at, bought, searched for, when they are buying, etc. They have no need to see any trending of these statistics so they can better understand sales cycles and detect anomalies in sales activities. Having this data nicely graphed in some way would be simply asking too much! Come on Merchants! In fact, I dare say that LCT has already provided us far too much reporting/trending and they should remove it from the MP Merchant access because I am sure it just slows down MP and all this extra data gives Merchants an ability to just gripe on how their sales have been slumping. SOOO..... Get rid of the little MP sales/traffic that already is provided on MP !! Related to MP although not directly on the MP system that should never be touched and in fact reduced is the Transaction History window size of the main second.com transaction history reporting and download. I know a lot of Merchants have been begging LL to simply increase this transaction history from 30 days to even 90 days or more, but come Merchants - be reasonable here!! Think of the extra time and effort this would take LL to make this happen - I mean a couple hours is valuable time in a LL Developer's day that could be better spent working on new OZ PRIVACY POLICIES or extended not-asked-for ALL RECEIVED FOLDER FUNCTIONS. And who really need a transaction history of the same window size of the MP transaction history anyway? LL should actually consider reduce this window to 7 days - this might save valuable disk space which LL could then reduce sim teir fees by 30% from all this disk saving.... right? Ohhh the product review process.... what a symbol of complete fairness and unbiased reporting of a product's quality and Merchant's service. The LCT should never think of the idea of removing this perfect system from MP. Nor should they think of the idea of introducing a function that Ratings under #3 must be accompanied by a "justification of why" as well as a question to the reviewer if they contacted the Merchant before making this rating. Nor should Merchants ever be notified when a comment review was posted on their products or that the merchants should be able to append a brief attached optional response to the comment if the reviewer's comment was misleading or unfair. Heck there is so much right with the Product Review System that LCT should just never look at this MP function. While I am on a roll... LCT should never think about reducing commissions on MP sales until they could provide a stable and well rounded service to the Merchants of MP. I mean come on... LL should have the right to remove functions from MP over the year and experiment with code on MP that impacts Merchant sales - like on Vday - and have the right to ignore Merchant's requests for MP funtions. So why would LCT even entertain the idea of reducing commissions for providing a degrading level of MP service?? That is CRAZY TALK! Finally - although I could go on - the last thing I do not want to se LCT ever change or improve..... their level of communication with their Merchant customers. I think the fact that LCT actually makes a posting in public every other month to hint to us about secret things they are working on and will be deployed only hours days or a couple weeks before it goes live is already far too much communications. It should be total blackout. We should not even know that the LCT exists. And to ask LTC to be transparent and honest with their rare communications (like telling us about "an idea" about ALL IN ONE RECEIVED folder just being an idea when it was already only weeks away from being a deployed function without anyone's knowledge) would be again.... CRAZY TALK! LCT has nothing to learn from actually having a good interaction with their customers and it only wastes precious time for them where they could be coming up with their own ideas and priorities on what MP should have. Merchants should be treated like children and LCT knows best what merchants want even though they never actually create and sell products on SL themselve. TThats it for now! Please LCT - keep doing all the right things and plug your ears of all the things your crazy merchants and customers want.

Arwen Serpente wrote: Darrius, I totally respect your response to CTL. For perspective, I was much simpler in my response wrt the "RI" Folder: I asked that it be renamed "Marketplace Purchases" and that only MP purchases be deposited there (that's what the RI was supposed to be wrt DD). As far as anything else that residents receive in SL, I would keep the same system as we currently have. For exisiting residents, it is an "easy to understand" addition to our hierarchy of folders; for new residents, it will be much easier for older residents (or Merchants) to guide and help newbies when the system mirrors what we have all been using with the one addition of a "Marketplace Received Items Folder". For me, I'd just like to keep it as simple as possible. I am totally with Arwen on this. This is what all Merchants that understood what DD was going to deliver would have. This is what we were willing to accept (relunctantly for me). And for LL to decide to throw in the entire kitchen sink and solve problems that went WAY PAST WHAT WAS EXPECTED AND ASKED FOR... big mistake!! DD is already a HUGE risk with how LL develops and deploys technologies - this is like saying "we will stop all wars on earth .... and ahhh heck why not ... lets solve world hunger too!!" We all know they wont listen and what you see in Beta is what will be going in. They didnt listen to pages of responses on this forum..... why would they listen to a survey AFTER they already announced the delivery of this solution???? We know they wont. BUT on a miracle if they did.... I agree with Arwen

There really is no need to fill out the Survey - its a complete waste of time. We gave LL Commerce Team 9 pages of feedback in this forum and they didnt listen. They have already made a commitment to deploy what we all see in the next 3 weeks. The Survey is just LL's shot at trying to make it look like they are listening when they have just proven they care as much about our CRITICAL FEEDBACK as they care about general customer service. Save your time and effort folks.... you are doing a feedback survey in futility.

Well as we all predicted..... you can read the LL Commerce Team like a book. Pages and pages of 100% instant WE DONT LIKE THIS FEATURE LL!!!!!! and what was LL's response to our "Critical Feedback" ??? Thanks for all your feedback.... we have ignored everything you said and we are ramming this big unwanted smoker down your throats - just as you said you didnt want. And then LL wonders why their customers are so utterly frustrated with them. You just cant win with them. At least the incompetance of the Commerce Team has spread to Oz Linden as he started doing the same garbage as Brooke and company...but the LL Commerce Team is the leaders of the pack in NO CUSTOMER SERVICE!

Drongle McMahon wrote: 1) Make it physical (object tab) then deselect it. 2) I don't know. Are we talking about a mesh object? A basic prim will not fall from the sky if you deselect it. If that were true every skybox in SL would have come crashing to the ground long time ago but i didnt know mesh naturally abides by sim gravity if its put in the air and let go.

I understand your explanation if that is how the SL Physics engine works. In theory the physics engine could have looked for the object's lowest Z position coordinate and taken actions of object's Z = Linden Lab ground. But that is not how the engine was written so no big deal. Two things... 1) My brain must be off but exactly how does not take any prim and rez it into the air and let it go whereby it would fall to the ground? Am I forgetting something? When I rez a cube and place it at any level and let it go... it stays there. The only way a cube could drop is if I placed a script in the prim that would tell it to drop. 2) No one answered why a mesh that is Phantom is not rewarded with a lower LI? The Physics Engine does not have to deal with a mesh colliding with any other objects that runs into it. Wouldnt this reduce server lag and thereby be rewarded on LI?