Zanara Zenovka Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Posting this because it affects quite a few scripts commonly used by merchants, and there's justifiably a good deal of concern circulating already.Ostensibly because of issues surrounding privacy, and mostly to do with third-party viewers that show true online status, regardless of privacy settings, Linden Lab are disabling the function that checks an avatar's online status (llRequestAgentData(AGENT_ONLINE)), unless you are the owner or creator of the script or object that's doing the checking.This will affect a variety things such as staff boards, ad boards, some mail, vendor and product updater systems, bot controllers, RP systems, communication devices, as well as the obvious applications such as online status indicator gadgets,It is hoped that the existing function will not be removed until LL can ensure that the new Received Items folder can accept inventory offers, even when you're offline and IMs are capped.http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/ReceivedItemsBetaTestingThere is the (currently slight) possibility of a new event-driven function being added that could replace it functionally.Nothing will be changing for at least 2 weeks, and changes will be made to RC servers before the main grid. Hopefully it can be delayed further while they fix Received Items.While supposedly designed to inhibit stalkers/griefers, it act actually means that• Any script or object you own or created can show your online status.• If you've ever made a full perms script, someone could edit it to show your online status.• If anyone has an object you made, with modify perms, they can add a script to its contents to see your online status.• Anyone can still see your online status by joining a group of which you are a member.• But you cannot use a device to check the online status of anyone else, unless they created the script or the object it's in.All currently available official details can be heard here:http://lecs.opensource.secondlife.com/tpvd/meeting/2012-02-24.mp3The relevant part is between 5 and 10 minutes in. Below are my transcripts of pertinent points from the meeting audio."The current plan is that it's going to be changed so that the LSL function will only return true presence data if the script or the object is owned by or created by the subject of the request.""For performance reasons, there is no good way to make that LSL interface actually look at the permissions that people have set, so this is how we're working around that." (ie breaking it for everyone)When questioned about mailers and vendors that check online status to ensure items are not lost to capped messages: "It is believed [...] that the received items and direct delivery changes will just fix those problems anyway."When told that deliveries when capped are still lost, even with the new received items: "Well if someone wants to actually do some testing with me about that, I will be glad to participate in that. But the intent is that that be fixed, if that's not fixed then, we'll deal with that as a bug. It is very emphatically our intent, that those delivery problems get fixed, and there is serious effort being expended on that in that regard. So I think that that other relatively recent usage of that agent presence data is not something that we really need to worry too much about, at least not for very long." (!)When asked about product update servers that check online status, that would now have to send all their updates at once and risk being throttled, another dev (?who) said "they already have to update their systems anyway, for the llGiveInventory throttle; they're already broken now, so there's not much more breakage going on." (!!)One shining light in tunnel:"There has been discussion of whether or not we should provide a different LSL mechanism, that could respect permissions, [and would] instead deliver an LSL event that you've asked for, rather than polling the permissions interface, [..] but it's up in the air right now."Re timing:"It will go through the normal release process, so it will get broken on one or more release channels first, and then eventually it will roll out to the rest of the grid." (He couldn't name a date, but said that it would be not less than two weeks.)https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-4823 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marigold Devin Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Thanks for posting all this information, Zanara. The ironic thing is that is won't curtail stalkers at all, so the person requesting this feature in their 2009 JIRA SVC-4823 isn't guaranteed the privacy they want (and how come they are attracting such a lot of grief anyway?!). Oz Linden added a new comment to the JIRA today, which looks hopeful, but would be better if more merchants/employers/etc added their voice too. Oz Linden commented on SVC-4823: -------------------------------- "The feedback here is very useful. Thank you to those who are providing descriptions of use cases that don't unduly violate the privacy of the subject of this LSL method. We will discuss this further and provide updates, and will try to do so with enough time for existing usages to be adapted if needed. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassy Romano Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 It was also exceptionally clear from listening to the whole audio transcript, just how utterly out of touch and unaware LL staff are as to how the platform is used. They couldn't understand the use case behind adboards which showed online/offline status if the board wasn't OWNED by the person advertising their status. Oz...go seek out an SL escort, you'll be able to tell which ones are online by the status on the thousands of adboards which they don't own. (just one of the many cases) What a week! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostRider Evermore Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 LL strike again ! Staggering incompetance and it showsjust exactly how out of touch they are with what really happens in SL ! All they seem concerned about is fleecing people for Premium Accounts in SL which offer ... er ... nothing ! ( apart from the Comedy Zone known better as "Live Support Chat" ... ... but I digress ... Removing the on/offline tracking scripts will be a disaster for the reasons stated above. As part of the SL Security Industry, not only do we use these scripts for legitimate business uses like staff online indicators, message boards etc etc etc but it's always nice to know when our favourite griefers and stalkers are online etc ! The effect this will have on normal business operations .. and consequently customers .. is potentially devastating ! Most HUDs rely on said scripts for radar ( incl the viewers like Firestorm, Singularity etc etc ), SIM Scanners and even for targetting purposes. The bad guys in SL pay no regard to TOS anyway and have illegal viewers and non-TOS compliant equipment ... so yet again it's the good guys that abide by the rules that get hit ... just like RL ! So we're now to have both hands tied behind our back in the security industry when trying to make the place safer for normal residents ! Creators and businesses need to combine on this one and say no to LL ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweetNWild Magic Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I see the same old simple approach is over looked. An approach which will satisfy all those with a genuine need to check online status. All the server has to do is abide by the person privacy settings. One setting which would fix all problems is under your viewers privacy settings. 1) Only friends or groups know I’m online When the server responds to a scripted objects request for online status, all it has to do is check the persons privacy settings. If “Only friends or groups know I am online” is CHECKED than the server will always return FALSE even if on your friends list! This always returning false will still give a person the ability to hide online status from selected friends if they choose without an online status gadget checking up on them. An argument against this method could be the extra sim processing time in checking a person privacy settings. But, this can be overcome with a cache in the simulator and updated once a day. So if a person changes privacy settings it could take up to a day for that sim to update. Just like Display Name can take several take propagate. 1) If the server abides by this simple rule it can return a TRUE result when the person online status is being checked and the person being checked has “Only friends or groups know I’m online” UNCHECKED. This would give all scripted objects permission to check online status thereby given the person having online status checked full control over their own privacy. This of course would allow add boards and so on to function as normal without interfering with legitimate scripted objects checking a persons online status and respecting the privacy of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrius Gothly Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Z - I've added my thoughts and vote/watch to this, but from the audio recording, it seems clear to me that Oz has already decided this will be "fixed with the Received Items" folder and thus they are free to break it anyway they wish. So TWO features jammed down our throats that provide nothing useful, break massive numbers of existing devices and user habits .. and are only announced AFTER they've been set in stone. Mah-velous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hexem Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 So... Did they say if they'd be refunding the thousands of customers that purchased devices like these for clubs and other functions? I'm certainly not going to refund all my customers at this point, I don't have the L$ anymore. All I'll be able to do is tell people "Yeah sorry... LL broke it." They're out of their goddamned minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanara Zenovka Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 Yeah, I don't think many people realise how much of an impact this will have, as to most people, the only indication of the use of AGENT_ONLINE is in devices that display "xx is online/offline", but it's used in internal scripting operations of a variety of things - gift vendors, bot systems, staff boards, staff time clocks, ad boards, tip jars, gift boxes, delivery gadgets, RP systems... would be interesting to turn it off for a day just to see the effects. Rian's comment that he has sold over 1000 devices using this got me thinking. I'd have at least 2000 out there, and that's not counting the ones that only check their owner's status. Multiplied by how many pro scripters? Imagine Conover's total - his items have over 100 *reviews* each on MP - one has >800 reviews. What about Mystitool? It's gotta be used in there somewhere - 3700+ reviews. Then start thinking about vendor systems, and then, and then...the scope of impact for this is massive. Yes, Darrius - the implied tie-in with Delivered items is scary for a few other reasons too, (1) that the separate changes seem to be directed by different departments who haven't adequately compared notes (and have a dietary dogfood deficiency as Ms Romano has noted), and (2) that for DI to help with capped delivery failure, you'd need to either remove the capping limit or auto-accept all deliveries from scripted items, which opens another whole container of platyhelminthes* so I'm not even convinced that this will happen at all, unless (yet another) throttle is added to ensure that someone doesn't log in to 1000 items of junk (in the same folder that houses returned items - ooh yeah). Marigold Devin wrote: Oz Linden added a new comment to the JIRA today, which looks hopeful, but would be better if more merchants/employers/etc added their voice too. Oz Linden commented on SVC-4823: -------------------------------- "The feedback here is very useful. Thank you to those who are providing descriptions of use cases that don't unduly violate the privacy of the subject of this LSL method. We will discuss this further and provide updates, and will try to do so with enough time for existing usages to be adapted if needed. " Yes, thanks for linking this, Marigold. Atm it's useful to contribute whatever examples we have to demonstrate the complexities of how this is currently used and the systems and business and social practices that depend on it, since Oz does hint at some chance of reassessment. (straws....clutching....tighter...) GhostRider: your example is a good one that I haven't seen described previously - would be great to add to the jira if you haven't already. https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-4823 (and sadly the numbers there now actually represent the people *against* the original jira, although some are avoiding watching for that reason) but it's where all the communication is still happening.) *Yes i know you could argue about specific classifications, but platyhelminthes is just feels so good to say. ;p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanara Zenovka Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 Thanks to everyone who's posted useful info. Oz has added some (somewhat reassuring) feedback today which has me at least thinking we can breathe a bit easier for a while: ---------- Oz Linden added a comment - 27/Feb/12 12:04 PM Everyone.... I don't know if this will help or not, but I'm going to give it a try and see.... We hear what you've all said, we understand the issues, and we're going to discuss what we can and should do about them. Nothing is final. We appreciate that Phoenix is moving appropriately to remove the privacy violation from their next release, and hope that they'll do that soon, but we understand that these things take time. In order to help us to have a better understanding, I appeal to the many of you who are posting messages that essentially say "I agree - this will be bad for me too" as opposed to describing a specific use case not already described here (and thank you to the many posts that have done a good job describing use cases): please stop with these "me too" posts - they just make it harder to read the full stream (and yes, I at least am reading all of every comment). We know that for every use case there are many users... we don't need each of them to post something. ----- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostRider Evermore Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Great job Zanara ... I'm still keeping the champagne on ice ... but at least the guys is talking ! ( and reading ! ) Like SweetNWild says ... if all affected designers and scripters can actually get with Oz and "negotiate" constructively ... then just maybe we can avoid the meltdown LL normally create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrius Gothly Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I agree, it is a good thing that Oz is reading and paying attention. But wouldn't this have been so much better handled if the information was put out before the decision was made? The attitude expressed at the initial release was "this is a done deal so we're just being polite and informing you..." But this is a setup to a major fail every time. And LL has done this repeatedly time and time again. Is it so much to ask that they learn from past experiences and turn the whole process around to save the breaking of trust, rampant anger and emotional flaming ... and ask the customer base what would the fallout be from a change such as this? While the old saw says "It's easier to get forgiveness than permission", that's only true with Mom and your immediate supervisor. It does not work with 50,000 paying customers that are gun-shy and tired of having their income and daily relaxation time torpedoed by pronouncements with no forethought and no consideration whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanara Zenovka Posted February 28, 2012 Author Share Posted February 28, 2012 Yes - I'd love to see some formal inclusion of a call for user impact statements in the production process *before* things reach this point. Addit (went afk mid reply and missed your response, D) But yes - LL need to formally recognise that they can't actually manage to keep up with the evolution of their tools in the users' hands, and need a way to ask "what effects could this have?" at an early stage. Throughout this I keep thinking of De Bono's Six Hats technique for decision making and how useful it would be here. http://www.debonothinkingsystems.com/tools/6hats.htm SL users do an awesome job as "Black Hats", but our input is currently seen as being oppositional after the fact, rather than an essential part of the creative/problem solving process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luvis DeCuir Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Hey Zanara, this is a very valuable thread, so thank you, on behalf of all who will be affected if these changes take place. Darrius, I just had to say something about your idea that Oz is reading and paying attention. It seems that depends on whether he likes what you say or not, and this includes whether or not he allows Jira (https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-4823?) comments to stay posted or not. I have posted there twice in the past 24 hours, and both times, my posting, and all the comments left by people in support of what I had to say were removed. I dunno, maybe I broke some sort of Jira rule, but I thought my comments were very relevant, and find it frustrating to be allowed to have my say, so hoped it would be ok to post here, so that I can continue to believe in freedom of speech. This was my post: Well I have read through most of the comments on this proposed change, and I have to say I am flabberghasted that Lindens are even considering it. I have read dozens of reasons for NOT making it, outlining the disasterous consequences of this action, but let me see, were there any good reasons for it? Well there was the whinging by a few people who got caught out lying, and want to be able to lie and not get caught, and all under the guise of wanting privacy LOL! When you step back and see this for what it is, it's actually pretty disgusting, and Lindens can feel very ashamed for ever even including the option to lie about online status in the first place. I mean, come one, where's the integrity in that? Oh, and there was the lame one given about griefers LOL! Geez, you people, learn how to submit an abuse report, and that problem is solved. But back to the right to lie that some of you want to call privacy. My God, if you dont want to talk to someone, dont talk to them. If you dont want to stay friends with someone remove them from your list. Rather than providing an option in preferences to lie, why dont the Lindens provide some free communications courses so that the ones who prefer to lie, rather than just let their friends (LOL! thats a joke!) know honestly they dont feel like talking that day, are able to communicate that to them in a kind and loving way. At least there would be integrity all round. And a win-win too, I imagine. Why am I concerned enough to leave this comment? Well I am not a content providor nor do I have an online business selling things that rely on scripts remaining unchanged on this issue, but I do have a few alts, and because the time I have available to spend in world is limited, I see the online notification tool that I use everyday as a Godsend. I can see at a glance which friends are on and instead of having to log in with each avi to see whos there, can just login as the one I need to catch up with a particular friend if I know she is online. Basically (Lindens) if you change the scripts in a way that breaks this tool, then you have lost me as a participant, so please, please, if you want to make a change, then make the only sensible one here, and that is to show (model) the fact that YOU have integrity (I'm sure you all do), and remove the option to let people lie to each other, and for heavens sake, stop calling it a privacy issue, because it simply NOT that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanara Zenovka Posted March 1, 2012 Author Share Posted March 1, 2012 Well after five days of Jiradramz, it seems like the changes to llRequestAgentData are on hold for the moment. Time for a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down... Oz Linden commented on SVC-4823: ------------------------------ -- Thank you for the excellent descriptions of problems with this proposed change. We have decided to defer any change to llRequestAgentData until the important issues raised here have been addressed, especially those regarding delivery to off line users. It is very likely that any scripted object using this method to query agent presence will need to be updated when we do make changes, but we will make every effort to provide ample notice and to ensure that reasonable methods to solve the use cases described here are available. Interested users are encouraged to Watch this issue and the LSL Scripting Forum for updates. Note that usage of llRequestAgentData or any other mechanism to circumvent privacy protections as a viewer component is still prohibited by the Policy on Third Party Viewers. [ https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-4823?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=313055#comment-313055 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassy Romano Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Indeed though pity that both Oz and Brooke didn't come with their appropriate Product Owner hat on and find out what the actual needs of the major stakeholder were BEFORE both went off and looked to implement solutions that were so far off the track as to what is needed. It would have saved a lot of development time. "Received Items" was quoted by Oz as 'fixing' the lost inventory due to capping which was going to mitigate the problem of killing llRequestAgentData. "Received Items" was supposed to deliver a new way to manage items that it turns out nobody wanted to embrace and so this is scrapped in the original proposed form, thus breaking Oz's plan to use that for the above. Both appear to have completely failed to comprehend the actual problem statements that they're trying to solve and since it seems that no Linden wants to produce the result of the survey (what survey?) that was given before making these changes, it does rather seem that the solutions were made up to address something else. "Dogfooding" - What every company should be doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanara Zenovka Posted March 1, 2012 Author Share Posted March 1, 2012 I've been thinking about this a lot this week and I totally agree with the need for LL staffers to gain more familiarity with the world, as you know, but even so it would take them years of full time SLing to approach the deep and specialised knowledge that experienced merchants and creators have in their area of expertise. I really think there needs to be a way of formalising user input much earlier in the process, so we don't keep getting into these adversarial situations which are stressful and time-consuming for both sides. Now I'm really not sure how this could best be achieved. You could have certain users acting as consultants in their areas of expertise, but that would lead to accusations of cronyism and the genuine possiblity of people pushing their own agendas. It also raises the question of appropriate compensation for the time commitment involved. Perhaps, using this specific issue as an example, there could have been a call for feedback or an open-ended survey put out: Which scripts use llRequestAgentData(k, AGENT_ONLINE)? How is it currently implemented? Whose status is being checked? What are the applications? What sort of businesses/groups/users use it? What would break without it? Basically all the info Oz called for in the Jira, but done instead as in information-gathering exercise, long before any decisions are made. And you'd just have to design the questions and structure in a way that will get useful, detailed feedback, and not rants and raves. Or maybe once a week a creator could do a show and tell as an educational things for commerce/LL staffers. "This is what I do. These are the tools I use to do it. These are the issues I struggle with. These are the things that could make my life easier." Could actually be quite interesting and eye-opening and help build bridges towards understanding on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple Peccable Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Zanara Zenovka wrote: Or maybe once a week a creator could do a show and tell as an educational things for commerce/LL staffers. "This is what I do. These are the tools I use to do it. These are the issues I struggle with. These are the things that could make my life easier." Could actually be quite interesting and eye-opening and help build bridges towards understanding on both sides. Don't think that would work, Zanara. The thing to remember is that the #1 item on LL's priority list is "How can we make money?". So, if we creators show LL how we are making money they will then eventually turn that knowledge and expertise into a new revenue stream for them. On one hand, LL does not hate us. On the other hand, we are disposable. Here's a good example of that: I would love to add a full-featured, networked vending system to my line of products. However, I could wake up any morning, with no warning whatsoever, to find that LL has released their own vendor which is *required* in order to sell anything in world. That completely removes my motivation as a creator of such products. It is too risky to invest that much time in developing a product that could be wiped out overnight. Do you really think that LL would care if they wiped out the entire vendor industry if they believed that taking over that industry themselves could provide a viable revenue stream? Not a chance! I know that LL *wants* to work with us and cater to our needs, but anytime it comes to a decision between what is best for creators and residents vs. what is best for LL's profits, money is going to win every time, even if the decision is short-sighted and causes long term harm to their profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassy Romano Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Triple Peccable wrote: Here's a good example of that: I would love to add a full-featured, networked vending system to my line of products. However, I could wake up any morning, with no warning whatsoever, to find that LL has released their own vendor which is *required* in order to sell anything in world. That completely removes my motivation as a creator of such products. It is too risky to invest that much time in developing a product that could be wiped out overnight. Do you really think that LL would care if they wiped out the entire vendor industry if they believed that taking over that industry themselves could provide a viable revenue stream? Not a chance! You're right and for the same reason, LL could pull a U turn on policies which would affect me. As a result, my financial commit is never more than 30 days. On something like a vendor, that's an interesting one. There was discussion about an LL vending system that coupled inworld to MP and given that they will own the Direct Delivery API and the benefits that go with that, that would be a compelling story. However, I doubt that they could satisfy the needs of everyone, we're doing some things with our own vending system (an inhouse product) which will be innovative and nothing like LL would offer as it requires too much back end data processing. Having said that, i'm sure that for those who chose to sell only on MP, an affiliate kit that coupled into MP mechanisms would be a nice offering. LL would get their cut via %age on the sales as normal. Similarly, for vendor developers, opening up the API to DD either free (yay) or via subscription would be other cost models. Either way, the one blockage to a really good inworld vending system is the delivery function if only we had acknowledgement on llGiveInventory. I'd say "do it" though because LL's development was last week overtaken by an Icelandic glacier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanara Zenovka Posted March 1, 2012 Author Share Posted March 1, 2012 LOL Yes i probably got carried away in a brief fit of idealism there. There was talk of an SLX/Xstreet vendor years back. Vague memories of talk of a joint effort with Hippo? (very vague...) I figure if LL wanted to do a vendor system they would have by now. I thought their reason was perhaps related to that "never get involved in resident-resident transaction disputes" rule, or that the support involved might be excessive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple Peccable Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Yes, you are thinking wayyyy back. There was a deal between Hippo and XStreet that, if I recall correctly, was close to being completed and ready to deploy when the whole thing fell apart. That is scary from a scripter's point of view by itself. Then LL bought XStreet and turned it into SLX. In an effort to fix all the problems introduced by that, LL made mention of coming out with their own vendor. I have had the heebie jeebies about vendors ever since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Galli Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 All of us have realized for a long time now that this same communication problem is the underlying problem. None of us expect LL coders to understand on a deep level how SL works, but I think it reasonable to expect them to consult with those that do. And I think it fair to say that creator-merchants, esp those of us depending on SL commerce for a significant part of our income, are the power users of SL, and have the most at stake. This is why the Received Items folder received so much opposition from merchants but barely any attention from non-creators, although it would affect everyone to some degree. So if LL at any point decides to get information about proposed changes, merchants are the ones to ask. Surveys and forum discussions should give them a pretty good idea. Not that we have seen anything but lip service regarding their alleged desire to listen to us. Slightly off topic, of of great concern to me, and illustrative of the above point: LL viewers 2 and 3 are devoid of essential builder's tools. I am using Phoenix because it is the only mesh enabled viewer for Mac that is usable (Firestorm, I can barely move on.) Even tho I crash constantly on Phoenix, it is still a better building tool than LL viewers. One example: it is essential for me to have the abilty to copy position and rotation. This was not so essential before mesh, because when updating sculpts I did not need to reposition or rotate the prim, but just drop a new sculpt map into it. With meshes, when I want to update one, I have to upload and rez, position, and rotate a new mesh. (By update, I mean, I upload, see how it looks, then go tweak it in Blender, then upload again, sometimes multiple times.) Now, how many viewer developers employed by LL do you think understand the relationship between the copy position/rotation tool and the introduction of mesh? My guess: not a single one. It is not on their radar at all. And until LL solicits information from builders about the tools we need, the LL viewer will not be a good builders' tool, at least not for this builder. The best viewer for me remains one that crashes three times before I can even get inworld, and several times thereafter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Pamela Galli wrote: All of us have realized for a long time now that this same communication problem is the underlying problem. None of us expect LL coders to understand on a deep level how SL works, but I think it reasonable to expect them to consult with those that do. And I think it fair to say that creator-merchants, esp those of us depending on SL commerce for a significant part of our income, are the power users of SL, and have the most at stake. This is why the Received Items folder received so much opposition from merchants but barely any attention from non-creators, although it would affect everyone to some degree. "This is why the Received Items folder received so much opposition from merchants but barely any attention from non-creators," Sometimes it really is a matter of where information is posted. I would never known about this if I hadn't happened to stumble into the Merchants Forum. I was a little bored and randomly decided to take a look into the Merchants Forum. Otherwise I would have never seen it. My usual stomping ground is General Discussion and lately the Technology Forum. But yes, as a non-creator I didn't like what I saw at first and responded. I considered cross linking this in GD but didn't. Sometimes I do that with "buried topics." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marigold Devin Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Luvis DeCuir wrote: Hey Zanara, this is a very valuable thread, so thank you, on behalf of all who will be affected if these changes take place. Darrius, I just had to say something about your idea that Oz is reading and paying attention. It seems that depends on whether he likes what you say or not, and this includes whether or not he allows Jira (https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-4823?) comments to stay posted or not. I have posted there twice in the past 24 hours, and both times, my posting, and all the comments left by people in support of what I had to say were removed. I dunno, maybe I broke some sort of Jira rule, but I thought my comments were very relevant, and find it frustrating to be allowed to have my say, so hoped it would be ok to post here, so that I can continue to believe in freedom of speech. This was my post: Well I have read through most of the comments on this proposed change, and I have to say I am flabberghasted that Lindens are even considering it. I have read dozens of reasons for NOT making it, outlining the disasterous consequences of this action, but let me see, were there any good reasons for it? Well there was the whinging by a few people who got caught out lying, and want to be able to lie and not get caught, and all under the guise of wanting privacy LOL! When you step back and see this for what it is, it's actually pretty disgusting, and Lindens can feel very ashamed for ever even including the option to lie about online status in the first place. I mean, come one, where's the integrity in that? Oh, and there was the lame one given about griefers LOL! Geez, you people, learn how to submit an abuse report, and that problem is solved. But back to the right to lie that some of you want to call privacy. My God, if you dont want to talk to someone, dont talk to them. If you dont want to stay friends with someone remove them from your list. Rather than providing an option in preferences to lie, why dont the Lindens provide some free communications courses so that the ones who prefer to lie, rather than just let their friends (LOL! thats a joke!) know honestly they dont feel like talking that day, are able to communicate that to them in a kind and loving way. At least there would be integrity all round. And a win-win too, I imagine. Why am I concerned enough to leave this comment? Well I am not a content providor nor do I have an online business selling things that rely on scripts remaining unchanged on this issue, but I do have a few alts, and because the time I have available to spend in world is limited, I see the online notification tool that I use everyday as a Godsend. I can see at a glance which friends are on and instead of having to log in with each avi to see whos there, can just login as the one I need to catch up with a particular friend if I know she is online. Basically (Lindens) if you change the scripts in a way that breaks this tool, then you have lost me as a participant, so please, please, if you want to make a change, then make the only sensible one here, and that is to show (model) the fact that YOU have integrity (I'm sure you all do), and remove the option to let people lie to each other, and for heavens sake, stop calling it a privacy issue, because it simply NOT that. @ Luvis. You, me, and a few others broke a rule of JIRA by treating it like a forum thread, so Oz (rightly) removed our comments. And so here we are :matte-motes-grin: using the forum as a forum. ***** If LL base a decision to disallow the use of true online status devices/TPVs/scripts on the request of paranoid people who attract griefers, then a whole lot of other legitimate users suffer, and that's not acceptable. If LL are feeling the need to prevent us all from seeing the true online status of avatars because they want to be seen to be doing something towards tightening up internet security/privacy, then why? We are all avatars in a virtual world, and we choose who can or cannot know our real life identity, and what difference does it really make if everyone can see when we are online. No one has to answer the phone or the door in real life, even if whoever is knocking or phoning can see us through the windows. Same applies in a virtual world, except we have the advantage of being able to knock people in Second Life into the land of the non-existent via the block/mute/AR facilities available at the click of a mouse button. And if LL are going to throw secret reason number three at us - that the use of scripts etc to reveal the true online status of an avatar costs heavy on load on servers - then that's just not acceptable either; I mean, why, after all these years of being able to see true online status??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shy Robbiani Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Could not have said better..Thank you Marigold! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bjorn Otterson Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The solution to stalking and griefing is to deal with it directly, not to take away more and more functionality from the platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now