Boy Lane

Let me just quote Chalice one more time for you to answer that .

__________________
The Rainbow Girl
Be plurked: http://plurk.com/BoyLane

Fred Rookstown

Traffic== trust. Okay then.

So you have an internal SVN that is not public. Again, whoop-de-fucking do, how is that supposed to build trust?

And LL are angels, of course.

Unverifiable.

LL, angels, etc. Good lot of good that did with the TPV meetings you guys had.

Implying that Linden Lab gives a shit. They have my credit card and address too, and I've caused them damages.

GOOD FOR YOU.

And my neckbeard is tingling.

The PN was a bunch of volunteers doing it for fun, too.


</devils-advocate>

__________________

Innula Zenovka

Pretty much, I guess. You can't function in daily life, I think, at least not in a stable liberal democracy, without trusting people -- though obviously the amount you might lose by trusting someone comes into it. As in most things, I apply pretty much the same criteria to judging people in SL as do I in RL even though, because of the nature of my job, I'm very aware of the ways trust can be abused. Nevertheless, life would become impossible without trust, so, particularly if it's an amount I can afford to lose, I don't lose much sleep over it and I'm rarely disappointed.

Samuel Johnson said it the short way: "It is happier to be sometimes cheated than not to trust". And, at least for me, Onora O'Neill said it at considerably more length in her 2002 Reith Lectures, which seemed when I listened to them to sum up pretty much how I saw things only far better than could I ever express it. Bet you weren't expecting a reference to the Reith Lectures.

Innula Zenovka

Yeah. Which of them do you say are "convicted thieves" (what court and where?) and do you say that I shouldn't have relied on the competence and probity of independent devs like you (who adopted some of Emerald's code, so you must have studied it) to warn us of anything untoward?

Lucifer Baphomet

I trust them fine.

If i actually still logged into SL regularly, I might even use their viewer.

__________________

Boy Lane

They were convicted for developing, distributing and using malicious viewers. The court in this case is the community. Their fraud was confirmed by one of their own gang, Chalice; not that not everyone did know their crimes before.

They themselves still do not plea guilty but strangely try to hide behind new odd constructs to launder their dirty underwear instead of just saying, yes we did it and shit in our own pants.

WarKirby Magojiro

Don't you think you're stretching it just a bit?

__________________

Boy Lane

What do I stretch? These are facts, not fiction.

Cincia Singh

Ok let's recap:

1. No real court.
2. No real conviction.
3. No reason to plea to anything.
4. One unnecessary reference to scat.

This gets a 10 on the FAIL-O-Meter!

__________________
*My concern can be measured in micro give-a-shits, and I'm working on nanotechnology!*

Boy Lane

I did not expect you to understand a simple illustration to improve understanding. But it does not change the fact that the developers of Emerald are behind most of the malicious viewers around. Like it or not. And trust them or not . I do not.

Chalice Yao

Yanno, just to pipe in, I only have one complaint about comments like that.

Sentences like 'The developers of Emerald are beehind most of the malicious viewers around' always sound like the stated words apply to all of them, while this in reality is aimed at 3 of 19 (if you only count the coders) of the team.

And just for the record, the same goes for 'most of the malicious viewers around'. There are alot more out there than the 3 they created. Hardly, sadly, 'most'.

__________________
"Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?" - George Carlin

Couldbe Yue

I certainly don't trust the emerald team as much as I did previously and these days I'm suspicious of anything the team members release as an outside project.

What trust I have is based on believing Chalice wouldn't be associated with something completely underhand and that there are people outside of LL reviewing it.

So, I expect the worst but still keep using it because some of the features Emerald has are indispensable to me. Says more about me than Emerald.

__________________

Boy Lane

Then why the heck can't you (Emerald) openly say we did this and that shit, clarify what you have done, apologize and clear the fronts. That would fix all issues once and for all. Instead of inventing things like Onyx to hide your own past and blackmail ex-Emerald members ?! This is what I simply don't understand.

Cincia Singh

You didn't present facts you presented your opinion and stated it as fact, which doesn't make it so. I understand you perfectly.

Boy Lane

I don't really know what you understand or not. You most likely have not enough insight to understand either which is excusable, but I've quoted what Chalice said, who is part of Emerald. These are facts and indisputable.

Arilynn

At this point, the question to me is why not trust them? I have used Emerald for months without a problem. From what I have seen, there is a large number of Emerald users on the grid. And yet with this and all the questions regarding trust I have never experienced nor learned of any problems with Emerald that would break my trust. Installing and using any third-party viewer is an act of faith, but at a certain point it earns your trust. It has earned my trust at this point. And Chalice's involvement tops it off.

Boy Lane

Them. Them, the viewer? Them, the people behind?
Why should I trust Emerald?
Nobody reads anyway.

Arilynn

I read that. Although I have to say I frequently skip your posts as these topics develop. You seem to have an axe to grind or an agenda to follow that makes you overstate things and disregard conflicting opinions.

As for who is them: Yes to both. I trust the viewer and I trust the group behind them with regard to their work on the viewer. This doesn't mean I would trust all of the devs in any circumstance - just the work they do for the Emerald viewer. But that is how I trust any people in businesses I trust. I wouldn't give an employee of the bank I use my personal information in any situation outside of their employment. But I trust them to handle such info as part of their work.

Aliselia Aeon

I trust the Emerald Viewer as much or more than the LL viewer. *shrugs* Can I trust them with my information? Who knows for sure? But I ask you: are you sure we can trust LL with our information?

__________________
"Push 100cc of Social Skills, stat!" ~Casey Pelous

WarKirby Magojiro

Chalice mentioned that some people in the emerald team have a background in malicious viewers. You applied a strained analogy to that to call them criminals, it seems. No courts or cases were mentioned.

Rema Quandry

I feel the need to react to this. People change. They grow older. Their perspectives change. They change. It happens.

I am not the person I was when I was in my twenties. Back then, I did things that I shake my head at now. For instance, my political perspectives have changed; they're diametrically changed from what they were back then. How I deal with relationships has changed. What I value has changed. How I communicate with others has changed. What I think is right and wrong has changed.

Back in my twenties, I was ruthless in some situations where ruthlessness hurts innocents and generally does not work well. I learned. I don't do those things any more.

In short, I am NOT the person I was back in my twenties. Now, in my '60s, I've been in myriad life situations. I've learned a lot. I've grown and am still growing. I've changed and am still changing.

So what does this have to do with the Emerald Dev's?

Some of those "shadier" people, I can easily believe are changing, have changed. Just like I have. My ROT (Rule-of-Thumb) is to trust people as I see them now, until they give me good reason for not trusting them.

The Past is NOT the present. It's just one series of steps we take as we move in life. To dwell on the Past is to be enslaved by it (if we assume things never will change, we'll be motivated not to bother changing). To predict the future (or the present, for that matter) based on the past is always risky and, all too often, it can actually be wrong. (BTW I have a unique perspective here as a former statistical forecaster)

The value of the past is in the lessons it can teach us. In the case of the Emerald Devs, I want to believe that they've learned from their mistakes (I certainly have in my life). I want to believe that they've found new, more nifty motivations for doing things in life.

So far, it seems to me, they have. I've appreciated Chalice's even-keeled, candid responses to people concerning their viewer and her fellow developers. I've used Emerald for quite a while now, and it works the way I want a viewer to work. I'll continue to use it as long as it's not outlawed by LL. It's nifty.

So far, nothing evil has happened as a result of using Emerald. If it does, I'll deal with the consequences (I'm perfectly capable of doing so) and the people who perpetrate such nastiness (I always have . . . quite effectively).

So, do I trust Emerald? Yes, I do . . . as much as I trust anyone or anything in life. And, yes, in the past, my trust has sometimes been betrayed. But, for the most part, my ROT works. The people I choose to trust are more often trustworthy than not. My judgment these days tends to be very good.

I've decided to trust the Emerald Dev's, because in my 47 years using computers, I've seen "black hats" become "white hats" as they've aged and re-evaluated what they were doing against what they should be doing.

YMMV.

__________________


--- Rema



Artifacts at Aedificii (mainstore): http://slurl.com/secondlife/juree/206/203/81
Aedificii: An Ancient Roman Town: http://slurl.com/secondlife/juree/198/188/86

Boy Lane

Nothing to gain from arguing with fangirlz/boiz. When you run out of arguments it gets personal. Thanks for reminding me

Aliselia Aeon

Who hasn't done something when they were young that they are ashamed of now?

Arilynn

It is personal to the extent that you lose credibility with me when you say things like "convicted thieves" when it is not accurate. Either you don't understand what "convicted" means despite people's explanation or you don't care because it conflicts with your perspective, and I doubt the problem is with basic comprehension. I didn't run out of arguments because I'm not arguing anything with you. I stated how I view the situation and my analysis of it. You are the one saying that people don't read and calling them fangirls/boiz. That's fine - it doesn't influence me one way or another. But if you stuck to what was said and were more careful with your own words, you probably would find more support, from me included. As I said, I generally appreciate your PoV.

Rema Quandry

I look at the words and find myself reacting to the "loaded" language as follows:

• "convicted" (Who convicted them? See my later comment below)

• "Gang"? (value judgment of one individual; connotatively "loaded" word used to "evoke" a reaction--the staple of marketing, advertising, political manipulation, . . . and propaganda)

• "court" (if the community is a "court", does that make such community efforts as the Salem witch burnings . . . or the discrimination against Afro-Americans valid court "convictions"?)

• "crimes" (implies wrongdoing; the view of the individual presenting the metaphor . . . not necessarily "fact")

• "hide behind" (implies wrong doing, cowardice, etc.; the view of the individual presenting the metaphor . . . not necessarily "fact". More evocation)

• "launder their dirty underwear" (implies "fact" where such may not exist. Connotatively "loaded" metaphor used to evoke a reaction that aligns with that of the metaphor presenter)

I can't help wondering, when I see such what the real agenda here is. If the devs did just say, "yes we did it and shit in our own pants", would that really stop your rancor?

I'm guessing not.