Maggie Darwin

This was on Google+ (with no ability to comment) with the caption Wendz's should consider opening a Bed & Breakfast if this #SecondLife pic is any indication. All I can say is, if I woke up in a bedroom with burning candles on an upright piano, I wouldn't be looking for breakfast, I'd be wondering if I'd died in my sleep and was in a funeral parlor.

Terrence, with due respect, that's blowing smoke. Teens don't *have* legal rights equal to adults, and that is why this is a problem. For example, depending on the jurisdiction, they can void any contract they enter into, and they can't give true consent for any number of things. This is not properly viewed as a matter of "equal privacy rights". Legal adult status is not protected by privacy; try to buy alcohol or tobacco while keeping your age private. Don't tell us this is about "equal privacy" when it seems quite clear that the real issue is that you'd have to write, test and debug viewer and server code to support this (in my view) necessary functionality, and you don't have the time.

OK so what is the problem here, I get the feeling some people are blaming their lousy broadband system on SL; or the fact that they have a second rate computer. I'm running on Q6600 @ 2.40GHz 4GB with 20/20 Verizon FiOS. There were still significant performance problems with 2.3b2 not present with 2.2. I'll catch the next bus, thanks.

That's the usual "we're making a change people won't like, so slam-dunk it at the last minute" strategy.

I certainly don't want to be in a position to have to roll back to a smaller number (its not lost on me the disruption that causes residents), but changes to these limits require us to touch both viewer and server code... "Disruption" doesn't begin to describe the damage you can cause if people are forcibly removed from a group. Don't tunnel-vision on group chat; membership in some groups controls rezzing ability, income distribuition, even parcel and sim access. And "contact the group officers to restore stuff you really need" is no more an answer than "contact the builder who left SL last month to fix the content we just broke or made uneconomical"; some groups' officers are nearly or completely inaccessible now. If you increase the group quota, it should be viewed as a one-way trip. If, once increased, you are unable to meet your customer's performance expectations, you need a different solution.

Can't help but wonder what happens if the limit is raised and then lowered. Do folks who added groups lose them? Or to some folks end up getting to keep more than others? Unless they leave one and can't replace it? That kind of thing.

Furthermore, the new thread introduced to reduce region-wide lag has had some undesirable side-effects. In the past, when an avatar crossed a region boundary, rubberbanding began. Then, when the avatar was more-or-less rezzed in the destination region, they snapped back to exactly where they were when the rubberbanding began. Now, the avatar (and possibly a vehicle) continues into the destination sim for some distance, and then rezzes in a position removed from where the handoff began. This can result in penetration of walls (and floors), as well as inadvertant entry into areas protected by security systems, etc, or becoming trapped in an inaccessible part of a build (under a floor surrounded on all sides by a foundation, for example. Two steps forward, one back

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/banned-for-keeps-on-facebook-for-odd-name/2008/09/25/1222217399252.html

"we are very excited that soon we'll be sharing more of our thinking" Try not to get too excited. What a festering pile of flackspeak. I'd be more inclined to regard it as "sharing your thinking" if the sharing happened a bit earlier in the process. As it is now, what LL calls "sharing our thinking" might be more honestly described as "informing you what management has decided".