Wayfinder Wishbringer

Tinkle: Hi Wayfinder, along with all the other faults that have been brought up above, I do feel that there arrogant, dictatorial managerial skills is yet another factor in driving people away. I can't argue with that. If nothing else, maybe this blog will provide Rod with a reasonably good launch pad of customer grievances. I think I've not seen many SL blogs with comments as insightful as this one... on many sides of the issue. I wish I could say I wish Rod well... but at this point, I just hope he doesn't wind up running out screaming and permanently damaged. ;D BTW, just as a note Tinkle, that account you provided is right in line with my experiences of LL authority process. I was once, long ago, banned from JIRA for telling a Linden he was lying to customers on the JIRA... when he was. I appealed the decision with a 9-page certified letter detailing the issues... and Linden Lab didn't even give me the professional courtesy of a reply. About a year later, one of the more responsible and stable Lindens that I've met reviewed the case and reinstated me. But if not for his personal sensitivity, I'd be banned there to this day for catching one of the big dogs right in the act... and their "appeals" process meant zip. They didn't even give me the courtesy of an honest hearing. So yeah, that blog is right on the button. Now that said, I have long stated and firmly believe that in areas other than JIRA, Linden Lab seems to have a fairly thick skin; it's one of their finer points. If they ever lose that exceptionally fine trait-- their company will flat out die. I mean, look what's happening over in Egypt right now as a result of attempting to silence a people in open revolt. So if there is any credit that I give Linden Lab at all... it is their rather tolerant nature in these blogs. Which is why it surprises me somewhat that they took such an intolerant stance with Darius. Some Linden must have been having a bad day. Doesn't excuse the company ignoring his appeal. Frankly, in his forum post, I thought Darius exercised uncommon restraint.

Hi Tinkle. I'm sorry to read what happened to that user and it certainly seems like typical Linden Lab "justice". But I have to ask: what does that have to do with this thread or the current discussion?

(Oh, and if anyone at LL is listening, you might want to fix your code.) Here is an example of Linden Lab fixing their code. http://elfclanvr.grouply.com/message/1231

In all fairness, I don't think Rene was saying we just ignore the situation. I think the point being made is that we should not be forced to unnecessarily curtail our activities here because Linden Lab hasn't done its job... and parents haven't done their job... to monitor users here. The reality: Linden Lab does not require real life registration info... except for access to the "adult" continent (I don't know though, what's their policy on "mature" sims now?). This lax policy of theirs has caused severe problems on SL for years-- especially in the issue of griefing and fraud. Their failure to patrol their own grid and to moderate obvious issues has lead to severe problems of land theft, L$ con games, extreme griefing, and much more... not to mention encouraging pedophiles to run rampant (which they did, for quite some time, until the "no Age Play" policy came into effect). So I am certainly not going to tell someone who is supposed to be a responsible adult that they can't take whatever role they want to take... including the role of a child... because Linden Lab has failed for seven years to shore up their security and eliminate issues that would cause problems in such areas. Bottom line: if Linden Lab had done their job in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue. They could simply say "Everyone registers, just like on WoW... and Age Play or any other pedophelia will get you perma-banned and possibly turned over to the authorities." That is how one takes care of such problems-- not by telling peopele they can't pretend to be a child. Imo, people have just as much right to role-play a child avatar as people have a right to be (as Rene stated) a furry, gorean, robot, nightclub stud/bimbo, or for that matter... an Elf.

Good post Vivienne and I heartily agree, with the exception of the first line (but still I recognize and agree with the intent of what you said). To examine however: Second Life is back on early 2008 level by all means. Considering the reality of SL history, I would much rather SL were back on early 2008 level. In 2008 the majority of people on the board were relatively happy and having fun. Prior to Oct 2008 our group had eight sims and was going full-steam. The OpenSpace sim product was new and selling like hotcakes and SL was actually growing. It looked at that time like maybe LL had stumbled on the right mixture of product and possibly had an actual future. We had a viewer that, while not perfect, didn't have an 88% disapproval rate, we didn't have Display.Names, Xstreet was working with reasonable proficiency (search sukt, but what else is new?), and SL was basically humming right along. In 2008, Second Life was at the height of its glory. Now, even though the official sim count is almost equal to 2008, we also have thousands of abandonded sims included in that sim count. The viewer sux bigtime, Display.Names are a pain, SL Marketplace is (well, I won't even go into that rat's nest of issues), and here, in Q1 of 2011, SL isn't anywhere near the system it was in Q1 of 2008. So the sad truth is, SL is far worse than stagnant and back to 2008 levels. It doesn't even begin to measure up to early 2008. That said, I do understand and appreciate the point you were making: that SL hasn't grown in the past three years. That is most certainly correct... and your post spot on.

edit: This initially appeared to be a good job. But considering some of the objections still being voiced-- and the confusion inherent in this issue-- I'm withholding overall judgment. Still, leaving the original post here for what it's worth... because at least it appears LL is listenting. How much they listen remains to be determined. Fredrik-- GOOD JOB! Lindens actually listened to customer feedback and made the right call. You folks even went the full distance and set the default to SL ONLY... which was exactly the right thing to do. You know, that's the kind of thing that allows us to for once give a nod of approval. Folks, for those still dissatisfied, as far as I can tell with this limited information, SL is defaulting the settings to exactly what they are right now... but going even a step further and allowing us to secure some of that information as well... a function we've never had before. So I think in this case... rare and unusual as it seems... Linden Lab actually listened, delivered everything that was requested, and forseeing need actually went the extra step. Frankly, for the first time in a very long time, I'm fairly pleased with their decision. I'm not even going to examine the possible reasons why... I'm just going to consider this as "did the right thing" and let it sit right there. : )

Yes Mike. I think the bottom line of what everyone is saying here is simple: 1) Our profiles should not post to the web unless we intentionally opt them to do so 2) There should never be, ever, at all, any connection to external databases without specific, intended, and definite (not accidental or unindended) permission. In this situation if Linden Lab ever creates a situation in which someone unknowingly or accidentally ties in their RL Facebook information to their SL account-- LL could face some serious legal issues.

Gavin: "I agree with you in principle that the more self governed an online community is, the less likely it will be subject to legislative or political intervention." Precisely Gavin... the point exactly. If we want true freedom on SL, and if we want SL as a whole to remain as free and open as possible, it follows that we have to have some degree of self moderation, some sensible amount of "censorship" if you will (which really, is nothing more than setting acceptable boundaries)... to prevent the BIG DOGS from stepping in and doing it for us. Censorship is not a bad thing. There are people who treat it as a pox, but it is nothing more than societal regulation of what is publicly acceptable and what is not, for the good of society as a whole. Like anything else in the world it can be over-done and abused... and often has been because that's a very thin, gray line... but society without any degree of censorship is not society-- it is anarchy. No society can survive in a constant state of anarchy. That is the stuff of nightmares. If people belive that SL is indeed a society and not a "game", if we believe this is a "virtual nation" and believe it is a "world" instead of an interactive movie-- then that society needs government. Government requires reasonable laws. Yes, the government that rules the least rules best. But some degree of governing is required, some limitation of "anything goes" so that it is indeed a society rather than just a horrendous world of "I can do whatever I want to do, no matter what you say." Frankly, I've seen SL in such a state and if that were the situation everyday, everywhere... I'd leave in a heartbeat. I would not want to live in a place, RL or virtual, in which people have lost all vestige of common sense. (Mind you, it's pretty close to that already.)

Mike: Wait, let me understand this ... the presence of children causes pedophilia? Eliminating the child avatars will solve the problem? Hmmm ... that's an interesting approach ... maybe we should kill all the children in RL too? Well-stated Mike. Your tactic is one of my favorites in making everyday decisions: sometimes it helps to exaggerate the situation so that the principle becomes quite clear. Then it helps the gray areas become easier to understand. As was already stated above folks, Linden Lab has a long, long history of "solving problems" by crippling their grid. So as Mike states, what, we supposedly remove pedophiles by making child avatars illegal? That's nonsense. People, that is witch hunt mentality (and I hate to use that term, so I always use it judiciously). There are pedophiles, there are 10-year-olds that are here illegally and against TOS... so we outlaw child avatars to take care of both issues? No no no no no...

Shockwave: "The difference here, though, is it isn't real. It can't be real. It never will be real. You can't have a pedo inworld if everyone is an adult. Now can you?" DICTIONARY.COM: Pedophile: Someone who is sexually attracted to young children. So in the atmosphere of respectful disagreement... SL can have both pedophiles and pedophilia without the actual presence of young children. But even so Shockwave... are you presenting that sexual activities on Second Life have never included RL minors? Now yes, that can happen both in "adult" situations as well as "age play" situations. But "anything goes" clearly is an irresponsible concept that fails to protect Linden Lab, Second Life, and its customers from potential real life legal repercussions. This is especially the case now that teens have limited access to the main grid. "Anything goes" simply is not a responsible, feasible solution. Frankly, we saw what happened when SL did have an "anything goes" policy, didn't we? Second Life was turning into a cesspool and almost got itself banned by the German government (and who knows who else would have followed suit). I think we should have learned from history that "anything goes" doesn't work. All it winds up in is exactly what would be predicted: the more crass elements take over the landscape and turn it into one huge virtual sex shop everywhere we go. No thank you, I'll pass on the "anything goes" mantra. It simply does not work. Shockwave: "I can invent the most unholy of activities -- something involving child avatars, gay animals, a weed eater, 3 different brands of gasoline and a caffinated squirrel with a match -- and not a single person can, will, or could be harmed by it." By whose definition of harm? If you mean no one will be literally phyiscally molested in real life... possibly not. But didn't you read what I said about psychological studies that have proved, again and again, that people are changed by their fantasies? Television does affect how people think. Movies do affect how people think. Internet porn does change the way people think. These things have real life repercussions. So yeah, they may not get VD or pregnant by what they do online. But the mental and psychological damage can be incalcuable... and it can and often does have influence on real life thinking and actions. Shockwave: "But one major difference with movies is that no person being represented has ever existed. " Uhh... care to re-word that one? Because I can think of a whole, whole bunch of movie characters that most definitely existed. I'm fairly sure you meant to say something differently than what came across in type. ;D "So even though there are many activities in SL that aren't "my thing" the act of banning them because "someone else finds them squicky" pushes us straight down the slippery slope to becoming the wonderful community of Second Iran" Oh come on Shockwave. What, we object to online representation of pedophelia so we're Nazi's, fascists and homophobes? We draw a line as to what is socially acceptable, so now we're Iran? No insult guy, but... gimme a break. That's total BS. Shockwave: "Nothing in SL can hurt anyone anywhere under any conditions. " I think I and about a few hundred thousand other users would strongly disagree with you. Tell the people who have lost major investments that they can't be hurt by SL. Tell the people who have gotten divorces because of SL issues that SL is harmless. Tell the people who have gotten addicted to SL and lost jobs and family that SL is harmless and can't hurt anyone anywhere under any conditions. Again, respectfully Shockwave, you may need to re-think your thinking here. Not only does actual SL experience contractict your position-- but so does a great deal of psychological research. Our brain is basically a computational data device. Garbage in, Garbage out. That applies not only to SL, but whatever we feed our minds on a long-term basis. I am very careful what I continually feed my mind. Just as what we eat can affect our heath... our choice of regular entertainment can significantly affect the way we think-- whether we realize / admit / agree with that or not. Beyond that, LL should just tell people that if they are doing something that is against the law in their individual states, that's their problem and not LL's. Actually, that's not correct. The host can be held legally responsible if they are aware of illegal activity that is happening on their system and fail to take proper steps to curtail such. For example-- regardless of whether this is "VR and not real" or not... if somoene posts child porn photos on SL and Linden Lab is aware of that but fail to take action-- they can be held criminally responsible. This is an old and ancient law and has to do with reasonable responsibility of all citizens to uphold the law. That includes not allowing our property to knowingly be used in committting a crime. Blatant example: a friend asks to borrow your handgun, joking as he goes out the door that he's going to rob a bank. Know who is going to spend a few hours down at the police station explaining why he knowingly allowed his gun to be used in a robbery? There is a degree of legal responsiblity... as Linden Lab aptly discovered with the whole Age Play thing. The German government made if very, very clear that LL could be held legally responsible for what is knowingly allowed on their board. "There is no reason to make all of SL follow the strict edicts of the imams of Iran just because the internet goes to Iran." Now that is a valid argument... and is one of the issues faced by any international company. But you know what? If McDonald's sells burgers in Iran... they will flat well follow Iranian laws. The Internet is too new for major globally-spanning laws to be enacted... but Linden Lab has already discovered it is not immune to the laws of individual countries. Multiple legal jurisdications and differences can most certainly impact how Linden Lab does business. If for example, the Iranian goverment found LL to be in violation of their laws... they would have every right to shut off all access to Iran from LL servers. That's a business reality. To my understanding, that is exactly what the German goverment threatened to do... which is why after years of wink-wink, Linden Lab finally decided to shut down Age Play (and what a pack of hypocritical lies that was. "Oh no! We'd never allow such a thing here! Gasp!". LOL. Clowns). Gavin: "This has nothing to do with perverted ideas, but protecting the underage. First of all we know there currently are underage in SL all the way down to the age of 10." But there isn't supposed to be, is there? Where does there enter into this matter the responsibility of parents to moderate and control the activities of their children? Secondly, if SL evolve to be a family venue, there will be real children in here. We then cannot have a situation where adult persons impersonate children; real children may not understand there is an adult behind the avatar. But that is obviously not LL's intent. Even so, what is wrong with children playing with adults... even if those adults take the form of children? Seriously, at Disneyland they dress up as mice and ducks. In real life, adults play with children every day (although unfortunately, in many societies, that is becoming more and more objectionable due to potential danger-- for both parties). The basic responsibiity of protection of children falls not to Linden Lab and its users, but to parents of those children. If they perceive SL as a "dangerous" environment... they need to either moderate or remove their child's access to the board. Especially since a 10-year-old isn't supposed to be here in the first place. Finally, this is an area where we both culturally and in our legislation seek to protect the child, and the room for expression of the adult is limited for good reasons. What do you propose: "It is the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that adults can no longer take the form of child avatars on Internet Games." I have to say Gavin... just not gonna happen. Rene: "Disagree 100%...the grid invites 16 & 17 yr olds....anyone below that age should not be here in the first instance. No one has to justify their child like avatar appearance to a 10 or 13 yr old as they are breaking the TOS in the first instance. Without regurgitating old arguments again....i share similar views to Loki, Wayfinder & Shockwave regarding Child Avatars. You start down that sorry path.....you'll have to wonder which type of avatars are targeted next.....will it be Goreans or Vamps or Furries.? Narrow minded folk should find a different type of online game to play in imo" Ah, a voice of reason (no disrespect intended at all to Gavin or Shockwave. Agree or disagree, I'm enjoying the discussion with both of you). But Rene is right. I was just thinking the same thing... but she beat me to the punch.

Shockwave: Anything goes Others: M Linden... etc etc Two notes today: Yes, M Linden really really really really messed things up and deserves every bad thing ever said (except of course, that he was brought in knowing zip about Second Life by a bunch of knotheads that should have known better so what chance did he have?). But it also needs to be realized that Second Life was mismanaged long before M Linden hit the scene... and has continued to be severely mismanaged thereafter. So I don't really think we can blame this all on M Linden. It seems Linden Lab has been unethical and abusive in its management since before I even joined, and continues to be so to this day. Regarding "anything goes". Have to disagree there Shockwave. I understand what you're saying and appreciate the principles behind it. But one of my favorite all-time quotes is by a commedian: "Some people are so open minded their brains fall out." I think it's society's extremely permissive stance that has caused a lot of the severe issues we have in the real world today... and it is certainly Linden Lab's lack-of-responsibility stance that has brought SL to where it is. Every time I've heard people discuss "censorship" it's with crosses and burning torches, as if the concept is of itself a terrible evil bad thing. A society without censorship of any kind is without moral protection-- and historically quickly becomes sociopathic in nature. Hedonistic societies die. Why? Because the bad elements (and I do mean BAD) will quickly take advantage of and overpower the empowering situation and turn a "nice neighborhood" into a gangster zone. We have no shortage of RL examples to prove that point. That doesn't mean we invade people's bedrooms and arrest them because they have sex toys. It means we exercise a lick-of-sense and realize that virtual pedophelia is as conceptually wrong as real life pedophelia. Kalil Gibran said, "As a man thinketh, so is he." What these people do on virtual boards fuels their real life mentality. It doesn't give it an "outlet"... it makes such urges stronger and re-enforces them, so that rather than controling those tendencies, such people experience an ever-growing desire to experieince them in real life settings-- and are more likely to eventually turn to such RL activities. That's just basic psychology 101. (And yes, I know there is a lot of controversy over that concept. From what I've seen, those who argue against it do so more out of personal opinion than real life research). For Linden Lab to say "anything goes"... would be extremely irresponsible. We don't have to "legislate morality" to lay down a reasonable expectation of moral and societal behavior. We are not being "prudes" or "censors" by telling people, "child abuse isn't acceptable in real life-- it's not acceptable here". Having a basic drawn line of what is allowed-- and what is not-- is the foundation of any government. If we wish the government and society of Second Life to survive-- there must be boundaries of acceptable conduct-- and unacceptable. Fences are created not to restrict inhabitants, but to protect them. That doesn't mean we need to build an iron curtain. It also doesn't mean that all fences need to be taken down and destroyed. As for child avatars themselves, I'll repeat what I said to a friend the other day when we were discussing that very subject: a society in which the worst of sexual perversions is acceptable... but playing the role of an innocent child is not-- is a society that is beyond saving. Right is made wrong and wrong is made right and who's twisted brains are involved in concocting these things? Now of course if someone is found playing the role of a child in a sexual manner, they have stepped over the line and should be held accountable for such. There are limits to what any society should tolerate. But to speak out against child avatars as a concept, as I've seen some folks do both on blongs and in-world? What a reversed mentality! There are people on SL who play children for the same reason I sell a line of Tinies and often play a Tiny; they are "pretending" and re-living more innocent, enjoyable days. There are others who have never had a real life family for one reason or another, never can have a real life family, and the concept of pretending to marry, have a baby, and raise a child (or be that child) is just an extension of very normal, healthy, real life desires. Any society which condemns such... any society which says "you shouldn't play a child because perverts exist on the board"-- in my mind that is a society that has totally lost its own moral compass and is placing focus on the victimized rather than the criminals. If we want to remove pedophelia and child abuse from Second Life-- remove the abusers. It is the worst of propaganda and prejudice to tell people they can't play the role of children. That is how Linden Lab has "solved" problems all through the years. Griefers abuse megaprims... so remove megaprims. Griefers abuse push, so cripple push to the point even valid games don't work. In the end, the griefers achieve their goals (crippling SL to the point that people leave) and Linden Lab proves itself clueless pawns to manipulation. "There are pedophiles so remove the child avatars" is just that kind of clueless, bass-ackwards solution. You want to get rid of the pedophiles... remove the pedophiles. But as we go there, we might want to examine how "successful" real life efforts to do that have been. No matter how many we remove, there will always be more of the slime oozing out of the woodwork. There are no perfect solutions. But certainly the concept of banning child avatars is about as improper a "solution" as they come. I told Linden Lab long ago, as have others: Stop dealing with the symptoms. Cut out the disease. That is the solution to problems. Mis-focusing on problems and removing valid, viable concepts is so very much the wrong approach.

Gavin: So here, you actually have to go to FaceBook, and most likely register as a user there, to participate in SecondLife activities. I find it rather shocking to be frank. I totally agree Gavin. What... they can't host such a content on their own site? Or better yet... IN WORLD? I know they are trying to create a strong Facebook identity. But as has always been the case, they're asking US to do their work for them. What, it's not enough we create the attractive content on their platform, we have to create their Facebook content as well? And if we don't want to mess with Facebook... we're left out. Is that really how Linden Lab is going to start conducting their system? If there is one thing this company masters in... it's figuring out new ways to alienate existing customers. Shockwave: many people would have been fine with it... IF LL HAD DONE IT RIGHT! LL constantly screws over its own customers. And in doing so, turns them into exCustomers. And so LL is constantly screwing themselves. If I didn't get so much pleasure from my own community inworld and the building, I'd have been long gone after the whole Voidsim disaster (which cost me my home.) On the button. And that's the point. So often Linden Lab decides on a course... then implements it in a "knee jerk, half-baked method" (a phrase I used long ago in a discussion with Robin Linden... and that I've seen repeated over the years). Sometimes they even have a basically good idea, but implement it in the worst possible way (witness: viewer 2.x). I'm pretty much like you. The OpenSpace sim disaster (again, not Voidsim. OpenSpace were not void sims)... cost our group six sims... and all the work that went along with them. We tried to warn Linden Lab of the very predictable consequences. They ignored us and didn't change their minds until over 5,000 sims had shut down and the damage was beyond the point of repair. Right now, the only reason we are still on Second Life is because of (as you very well put it) 'our own community inworld'. Peter and I have both stated that if not for Elf Clan and our self-imposed obligation to our members... we'd be out of here. As for building... LOL, Inworldz has Second Life beat to a pulp when it comes to building tools. We have accomplished building feats on Inworldz unlike anything we have ever done on Second Life. And Inworldz isn't even up to a full head of steam yet. So good post Gavin and Shockwave both, and Mike... and Rene... and... Ghostdog... and... (interesting how many voices are speaking out these days, isn't it?). Pretty much hits all the nails right on the head. Linden Lab... are you even listening to what your customers are saying?

Hiya Balpien. Yeah, this is one that will have a lot of people upset. However, my solution is simple: 1) I don't have a Facebook account (seriously, the idea of putting real life information on the net is just astoundingly naive) 2) If I did have one, I surely would not link my SL account to that one... unless that is precisely what I wanted 3) If I did link my SL account to that one... I most certainly would not have anything in my RL profile I didn't want to be accessible from my FB account. So unless I'm totally missing something here... folks do have quite a few options still. I don't see a legal line that LL has crossed... yet. But the moment they breach their privacy agreement (and I don't mean some new agreement they contrive... I mean the original one by which they are legally bound), I will personally join in any class action that comes against them. So Linden Lab... go ahead with your optional opt-in Facebook and Twitter link. But advice: it better remain opt-in, and I would strongly recommend against crossing that line of breaching your user privacy agreement. That brings all kinds of Federal consequences. But as I stated, in all fairness, unless I am totally missing something here (is there information I don't know about yet... someone let me know if there is)... Linden Lab has at this time crossed no legal lines, or even ethical ones so far as I can see. (If they had and I was aware, folks know I would surely be in their face. LOL).

Rene: "Shall we emulate the Egyptians and surround the Linden Town Halls......bring out flags and protest banners? " Yeah, wasn't that a kick in the pants? Sounds good to me. Every day. Day after day. Let's tack a few dozen thesis to their doors. I for one, am sick and tired of sheeple syndrome. ;D Oh wait... I almost forgot. I'm just about to the "I don't care, let 'em sink" point. I warned LL about that two years ago. When we get to that point... they're in trouble.

I do have to however, mention a couple of things (forgive the triple post): I know a lot of folks were against LL banning gambling. But you know, legal is legal, and they are not based in Nevada. I also know this: any RL community that allows gambling to enter... also draws in all the riff raff and negative elements that come with it. So while yes, that did alter a lot of "business" on SL... I can't say that was a bad call. Same with moving the "adult" businesses to its own continent. I know there was a lot of grief over that and some people left because of it, but seriously, this stuff wasn't just "adult"... it was perverted beyond all common sense. It was getting to the point we couldn't travel anywhere without having the stuff shoved in our face. It was turning Second Life into one giant brothel... and it was attracting the worst elements from the Internet. (I mean get real people... we had Age Play and Murder / Rape clubs dotting the grid. It was time to draw a line.) So I understand some folks were really upset with that decision, and I will admit it was certainly hypocritical of a company that chose a naked teenage girl as their default avatar. But Linden Lab was trying to clean up the streets a bit so that people could actually travel some without having artificial dog wangs and pulsing cyber boobs staring them in the face everywhere they went. I can't say they made the wrong call there. I know some will disagree. I think a whole lot more know exactly what I mean.

Mike: "I sincerely hope that LL somehow gets its act together; that would be the best outcome for all of us. But my commitment doesn't extend to going down with the ship." Well said. Although we might both be there when the ship goes down. However, I plan to be looking on from a lifeboat. Already have it in the water. ;D Delura: "What rules have they changed? it seems very similar to the way I left it. What costs have increased? private land was always outrageous and I think they should reduce those costs, but we'll see, right?" Hi Delura. I don't even know where to begin properly answering that question. But, let's name a few obvious ones: * Raising the price of private sims from $195 to $295 so they are unable to fairly compete with mainland or existing grandfathered sims. * Increasing the price of OpenSpace sims 67%, forcing the shutdown of some 5,200 sims (20% of their private sim population) * Viewer 2.x, which is a hideously bad job of a product if I have ever seen one. * Hiring a CEO who was clueless about Second Life and thus nearly dragged it to the curb. * Taking over Xstreet, turning it into SL Marketplace and advertizing / hyping it to the point it has changed the entire face of marketing on SL (not saying that's good or bad... I like it myself... just saying it is changing the landscape of how SL works) * Removing the non-profit discount, effectively kicking the educational community in the tenders right in the middle of their fiscal year... when they can do nothing about it. * Putting OpenSim on the map by means of such foolishness (actually, that's a BIG plus as far as I'm concerned) * Creating Display.Names when pretty much their entire customer base was severely against it-- especially the experienced users who could forsee the problems that would be caused. * ... etc etc etc etc etc And that is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm sure others could add to this list significantly. (And in fact... I think we've already been over this above yes? I just realized it feels like I'm repeating.) ;D Delura: "I really believe that a robust, yet standardized, skills and combat system would remake this game entirely" I agree, it would help. The problem is getting residents to agree and accept a constant standard that fits all needs. And that's where the issue lies. Because different groups need different things. My group has a basic combat system. It's very simple. Fits our needs just fine. Other groups need extremely complex systems. Linden Lab tried to set up a health and hit system, but not surprizingly totally blew it (we do get tired of being sent home every time we die, don't we... especially with SL teleporting as crappy as it is. Cheez.. can't this company get anything right?). So bottom line, I'm not sure there is any one combat system concept that can meet the needs of everyone. In addition, I think the merchants that sell combat items would take great umbrage at Linden Lab interfering with yet another business model and putting them all out of business. Now that said, I would like to say one thing to the entire combat industry of Second Life: You folks are doing it allll wrong. This idea of putting combat elements into weapons is totally backwards. It limits weapons, it causes undue "update" hassles for weapons makers, it makes weapons more expensive than they have to be, and it's putting emphasis in the wrong area. In my opinion (after six years as an experienced fighter on this arena), combat systems need to be SEPARATE from weaponry. Actual weapons should be decorative only, non-scripted (except for pretties and whatever special animations they want to run). Weapons systems should be stand-alone, purchased and worn by the customer, and functional no matter what weapon they are holding in their hand. That goes for swords, guns, bows and arrows, magic spells, whatever. (Mind you we are speaking of combat weaponry, not show weaponry.) Spellfire should not be part of the weapon. It should be a module that attaches to the avatar and works no matter what sword they are using. Perhaps Delura, that is as close to a "standardized" weapons system as we can get. (And before anyone mentions it... yes I know, "what about this weapon that weapon" etc etc. I've been a weapons maker for years. I've made bows, swords, guns, plasma blasters, specialized weaponry, you name it. I'm telling you, a standardized, stand-alone weapons system CAN be done. Like all things, it just takes people thinking outside the box and being a little creative... as well as cooperative.) Shockwave: "blaming users for the broken voidsims while all the while continuing to sell a known faulty product." I agree with everything you said Shockwave, but felt a need to correct concept in this statement. (Shockwave is basically correct... just setting the record straight on a common misconception that was propagated by LL themselves). Linden Lab didn't sell void sims. That's what they tried to claim. That is total BS. Let's set the record straight here. Linden Lab stated in their PR that Homesteads are "more powerful, better" OpenSpace sims. That is malarky. In fact, they are exactly the same as OpenSpace sims... but have a cap of 20 people. So they are actually less powerful. When OpenSpace sims were on the market, they allowed 3,750 prims and no cap on avatars. They were advertised as lower-cost private sims. Linden Lab's own demo sim of Mos Ainsley was packed to the gills. These were anything but "void" sims. Linden Lab's later claim was (imo, with data to back me up) total 100% butt-saving propaganda (translated: lying through their teeth). At that time, VOID sims were only 1,800 prims and were indeed advertised as "minimal use". The were different from OpenSpace sims-- significantly so. When they brought in Homesteads and tried to charge 67% more for them, they made the claim they were better, improved, more powerful and that OpenSpace sims were originally intended as "void sims". That was total BS, as people can see in online documentation. OpenSpace sims were in fact in every way and function what we today call "Homestead" sims. Today Homestead sims are exactly the same, but cap their users. Void sims today allow only 750 prims (don't ask me why that prim reduction was found necessary). I just wanted to put that out there. Everything else you said was correct Shockwave. Just needed to fix that one fact: they didn't blame users for broken void sims (well, actually, I guess they did didn't they. LOL). But they weren't void sims... they were fully operational OpenSpace / Homestead sims (same product). They blamed users for being so bold as to take advantage of OpenSpace sims as they were advertised. It wasn't users that abused the sims. They merely used what Linden Lab made available to them. It was Linden Lab that lacked the foresight to cap avatars in the first place. That is in truth how they should have settled the issue ultimately: capped OpenSpace users as 20 and if they just could not resist... set the price at $95. Had they done that, likely the OpenSpace sim fiasco would have never happened (or if it did, to a far less detrimental degree). The fact that Linden Lab didn't see that coming, at all, and refused to recognize the danger even when we warned them... is typical of their company management method. That is what is causing this company problems. Now from my viewpoint, I see it like this: they were charging $75, the sims were selling like hotcakes, Linden Lab should have been dancing in the streets. They should have left the $75 price tag (or raised it to $95 if they just had to), capped the av count to 20, and given thanks that they finally stumbled on a working product. Instead they killed the goose that laid the golden egg. And in doing so, they alienated more customers and made more enemies than any company has any right to. That was their doing, not the customers, not anyone else to blame. That's just how Linden Lab operates. Consistently, destructively, and with due consequences. Other than that one bit of trivia... Shockwave is spot on.

I am enjoying the current debate-- because this is exactly what these blogs are for. With a couple of exceptions, the posters here are more respectful and polite than I've seen on these blogs in a long time. No matter what side of the fence we're on, the points being made here are interesting to read. I would like to answer a couple of things, and echo a bit what Mike said. Is it possible the recession had something to do with LL's decline. Sure, it's possible. I don't see any data pointing to that. I think Shockwave provided a fairly good answer to that. But still, in all fairness, I will agree with Mike that yeah, it could possibly have had some effect. That said, I must strongly object to the concept of the problem being customer attitude. With all respect... that is just more "blame the flippin customer" syndrome, and in my opinion is totally without basis. Why do I believe this? I am outspoken. No one here will deny that, not even me. I will call it as I see it and pull no punches. I was a hard-core businessman for (counting) for about 26 years before retiring early at age 48, and I don't take excuses from anyone about anything. I understand problems. I understand human errors. I am very sympathetic to real problems. I very much admire the Japanese concept of "don't blame, fix it". So while I very much can tolerate errors and mistakes, I absolutely do not tolerate excuses and "oh that's hard" or "that can't be done"... because to me that's the same as someone telling me "I need to be fired and someone more competent put in my position". However, that's what I have seen coming out of Linden Lab for the last six years. I've seen them state such things in JIRA and even on their blog announcements. Forgive me for being blunt... but if there is one great big message I've seen coming out of Linden Lab ever since I've been a member, it's "WE'RE INCOMPETENT!" That's just my opinion, ok? Saying what's on my mind, based on my observations. My whole life I either pulled off what I intended to pull off... or I openly admitted failure (fortunately, I usually succeeded. I hate the taste of crow). I didn't stand around making excuses or try to blame my customers. Blaming customers has been a Linden Lab power play for as long as I've been a member. It was never so much visible as during the OpenSpace sim fiasco, when they blatantly blamed us for "abusing the intent" of those sims... when in fact the truth was they just wanted more money... as came out in their blogs later. (Yes folks, this is all documented. Anyone disagree with this... I can start posting links. I was there and I kept track, as LL is well aware.) So customer attitude? Absolutely not. The customer attitude-- which is real and increasingly hostile... is in fact predictable and predicted consequence for Linden Lab decisions and actions. Don't let anyone delude themselves it is anything but that. How do I know? I know because of this: In addition to Second Life I am a member of Inworldz. Inworldz has all kinds of bugs. They have all kinds of platform problems. They have stuff that doesn't work right and left. And I have absolutely nothing bad to say about that company. Visit my blogsite; you will not find a single negative blog about them. Why? Because it's not whether the platform works or not. It's about company attitude, and effort, and whether or not they care about their customers. And I will tell everyone this, including Linden Lab: Inworldz puts Linden Lab to shame when it comes to customer service, support, and caring about the welfare of their users. (Warning: the following is blatant, frank and pulls no punches so hide the kiddie's eyes). The problem is is most certainly one of attitude-- but it is most certainly NOT customer attitude. The problem is Linden Lab's abusive, self-serving, narcissistic, profit-focused, egotistical, greedy, money-grubbing, arrogant, ignore-the-customer-we-know-better, self-destructive don't-have-a-flippin'-clue attitude... an attitude that destroys customer projects, betrays customer trust, wipes out customer investments and drop-kicks customer loyalty into the gutter. I am saying that as a person who has spent most of my career advising companies on how to integrate computers and maximize profit potential. But even if I were not... as a standard, everyday, Joe Everybody customer who has been on this grid for six years... I can see this company is rotten from the roots up. And that is where the problem is. The problem is one of ethics, and unprofessional attitude, and not giving a hill of beans what effect their decisions will have on their customers creations, projects and goals. Okay, that's all I'm going to say in one message. The rest comes in a bit. ; )

I would have to think that these devices will be used not only in the home... but on the go. Yes, there may be some home application-- with wifi-- and thus the avoidance of mobile bandwidth. But iPads were created not for home use, but externally. If we wanted home use, the PC platform would be just fine. But they're abandoning that platform. That means mobile. Regarding cached surroundings... no, to my understanding that's not how it will work. All graphics calculations will be made server-side and then streamed, video-style, to the mobile device. (At least, that's what was said in the Blue Mars discussion group). That means around a gig an hour. Whether Apple themselves actually sells the bandwidth or whether it's their agreement with some company, the local Apple store tells me they have a ready-to-go arrangement for the iPad (perhasp through AT&T) that provides 2 gigs a month for $25. That's the "official" Apple product and the salesman said "Apple provides it". So whatever the technical reality of that is... $25 for 2 gigs is the figure. That will not support a heavy-bandwidth streaming cloud system as is being proposed at Blue Mars-- which was one of the core subjects of that discussion.

Cathereine Night: I agree. SL is slowly being killed by Linden Labs/ Linden Research. I could say more but then the Mickey Mouse club will chime in and say everything is just peachy and perfect. LOL I know what you mean. I actually don't mind the Mouseketeers though; I respect the opinion (as I'm sure do you) of those who totally enjoy SL and find nothing wrong with it. Everyone has a different experience. I know the reality that there are people who just let things wash over them without any effect (and admire that to an extent... but don't much admire sheeple syndrome) and I know there are people who just use SL as an exploration platform, don't own land, etc, and think it's just great. I love exploring myself. So, np with club members. I do dislike the rat packs who have no clue what's going on and think their sole duty is to badmouth anyone with an ounce of common sense. And what I really dislike is Lindens posing as users, trolling actual customers and trying to de-rail threads when valid points start being made (yes, we see that happen quite a bit). It's dishonest, unethical, and cowardly. Not saying that anyone here is a Linden in disguise, but they've been caught more than once pulling that stunt. I always have to question when some troll starts attacking specific users... especially since they seem to focus on the ones that are presenting the hardest evidence. Can we say mole? If Lindens want to defend their company, grid and polcies, let them do so as we do... with hard data and evidence, right here in the blog. I'll respect that-- if for nothing else than they have the guts to get out here in the trenches. If they can't do that, then perhaps a viable alternative would be working to change their policies to be more customer friendly and supportive. Who was it that wisely said back there: Linden Lab derailing customer efforts only derails their own.

Daniel I know this isn't a Blue Mars thread, but wanted to follow up your comment. Like some, I do see some relationship of the Blue Mars and SL in management thought. And I personally consider Blue Mars a very bad example of company leadership. They, like Linden Lab, pretty much went their own way, ignored customer feedback, and bombed. To my understanding they rationalize that as being a fault of the platform and fail to understand it was their basic product concept people didn't like... and they refused to change the core concept. As for their new venture-- abandoning the PC platform and going to mobile (cells and pads)... I have one question. How do they expect to operate a cloud concept in a limited bandwidth environment? One user-in-the-know stated it could take up to a gig an hour to operate Blue Mars. How do they expect that to succeed when Apple charges what, $25 a month for 2 gigs? The core concept appears to be severely flawed and without realisitic business plan. Now mind you, I haven't researched their project all that heavily, but I did take part in a rather extensive online discussion... and nothing that Blue Mars was saying made sense from a business standpoint. It's like trying to offer people 50 gallons of water when they've got 12 ounce cups. Someone is gonna get soaked.

@Gavin: I think your premise is interesting and well-thought out. If it were any other company but Linden Lab, I might even agree. However, imo the path of this company is much less complex, much less "sly", much less intentional. From all the signs I've seen here we have a company that is simply fueled by two things: greed and ego. I don't state that as insult, but as observation of reality. The basis of my belief is this: The Second Life platform is, in base concept, a potentially very-high-profit business model, as it is. I mean consider, the company is pulling down some $6.5 million a month. That's not peanuts. The only thing that would not satisfy them with that, is greed. The only thing that prevents them from turning that into triple their current profits-- is ego. I've seen this before in dot.com companies; a bunch of relatively young and inexperienced people hit on an idea that succeeds, and they get a god-complex and think they can do no wrong. They start making decisions based not on solid business principle and foresight, but instead on blue-sky marketing concepts. "LET'S DO THIS!' regardless of the effect it has on their product and customers. So while I both respect and admire your insight, and refuse to say you're wrong (who knows, you very well may be right on the spot)... imo what we have here is simply a company that... 1) Thinks their customers don't know anything 2) Thinks they are so smart they ignore and rationalize their failures and thus fail to learn from history 3) Has all these grandoise plans that most others can see will result in problems, if not disaster 4) Continues blundering along For them to totally derail and destroy their current business model-- which is profitable-- would be just mind-numbingly stupid. Only a totally goofy company would abandon a basically valid business model for a stab in the dark and... oh... wait... uh... hmmm. You know Gavin, you just might be right. ;D No, actually, I don't think they have any gradoise plans here. I think it's simply a matter that Linden Lab thinks it knows more about Second Life than it's customers. They honesty believe they know what we need more than we do, and as a result blunder on head-first regardless of consequences. They simply think they're right no matter what and that their chosen course is THE course, even when it's obviously failing. I believe, as others have humorously said, the biggest problem with Second Life is Linden Lab. It's a core problem of basic company attitude. Myself, I think this is a clueless company that is totally out of touch with its customer base. Again, I don't say that as insult. I say it as observation and warning.

Okay folks, let's sit back and take a breath. You do realize you are both correct, yes? Gavin is right. ALL of Linden Lab's land income comes from sim owners. Period. They are bearing the direct financial burden of this grid. Without those individuals, there would be no land to rent. (The only exception of course is Linden Lab's parcel land... in which case they become the sim owner in competition with their own customers.) If people are renting land from Linden Lab (say, parcels on mainland) they are part of that landowner set. Since they HAVE to be premium users to rent land... they're included in that financial burden set. Now as Rene points out, that financial burden is distributed among a wide set of others, because people rent land from land owners. Thus the overwhelming burden is diffused. However, the reality remains that according to LL business model... the initial and sole burden of their fees falls upon a significant minority of their users-- which is the point Gavin is making. Rene is making the point that users have a way of coping with Linden Lab's inherently poor business model so that the financial burden is spread out. But that is our doing. We have to work to secure those renters, to make marketplaces viable, to get people to rent that land and diffuse those fees in the first place. So to summarize, you're both right, your points are both valid. My point and the point of most of us here is this: the base SL business model is flawed, aimed toward an elite few that can afford their excessively high fees, thus limiting their potential market and stagnating the grid. Does it work? Sure it does... for now. They're pulling over $6 million a month in fees. But they are totally ticking off their users in the process because they can't keep their management spoons out of the soup pot and just let it cook. The company is self-destructive in nature and customer-abusive in practice... and as a result has one of the highest dissatisfaction rates I have ever seen in a computer company. Linden Lab has more outright enemies than almost any company I know. And that, imo, is the long and short of it.

Galileo Moleno: "LoL!!! Do you actually read the stuff you write? What difference does it make to you what these answers are? Are you an owner of LL? No. So why should they tell you? You rent server space. That's it! Don't like it here? Pack up and move on." I will respond to you in your own words Galileo: Do you actaully read the stuff you write? No, I'm not an owner. I'm a customer, and as such, an investor in this grid. They should answer my questions-- and the questions of others here-- because as investors in the Second Life platform we have a right to know the general health and welfare of the grid-- and we have a right to not be mislead, lied to and propagandized into believing everything is rosy. No, I don't just "rent server space". I-- and the 2,000+ members of my group, build, create, and provide a chunk of the platform that helps draw people to Second Life-- and thus helps provide Lindens their paychecks. Your typical "love it or leave it" attitude is old, trite, tunnel-visioned and clueless. And that's about all the time I think I'm willing to waste on your posts.

Side note: for what I think is the first time in my life, I am in total agreement with Prok's first post here. And well, just about everyone else here questioning corporate integrity in producing these stats. Not being snide at all. We're asking pointed business questions. If I were a stockholder (which thankfully I'm not), I'd probably have my attorney asking the questions instead. ; )

@Linden Lab: I am not at all impressed by limited "statistics" when your company is so very obviously hiding key data. * How many private sims are currently in operation, now and since 2008? * How many "Homestead" sims are in operation compared to OpenSpace sims in Oct 2008? * What are the user metrics (how many unique users logged in over time)? * How many total full sims are on SL? * What land area of those sims is populated? (how much mainland is now empty?) * What are average concurrency figures? * What percentage of L$ sales are from SL Marketplace and what percentage inworld? The fact that your company refuses to release these stats... no let's be honest... that you actually removed such stats from your system, tells me the only thing we're seeing on this page is what Linden Lab wants us to see. You want to impress me... hire an independent, unbiased third-party statistical company and give them free-range to provide all the tracking information possible to provide. Then I might feel like Linden Lab is being up-front and honest with us-- and that this statistics blog is more than just PR and self-serving coprorate propaganda.