Joshua Nightshade

I'm willing to bet I've been in hotels in the last year alone more times than her entire life and I've never had a housekeeper barge in when the "do not disturb" sign is out.

They usually give you a phone call around 2 PM if they haven't been in to check the room, but never, ever have I had a housekeeper ignore the sign.

Ridiculous logic in any event. But she'll keep moving the goalpost -- at the same time I'm sure she would screech if her house was broken into.

__________________

bronxelf

Not sure how to make this clearer, honey- you're wrong.

Would it stop the *most determined* stalkers? No. Youre right about that.

But it WOULD stop a LOT of people. There's people who create drama about this *simply because of the convenience of the information*. They *aren't* going to go buy a hud. They *aren't* going to go script a device. They're not.

But just because they're lazy doesn't mean they're not causing *real problems* for people in the meantime.

Again, the argument of "it won't stop the MOST DETERMINED assholes" is a lousy argument. Even IRL, *there is nothing you can do* to stop the most determined (anything.). There isn't. You aren't going to stop someone if they are truly, deeply determined to do (whatever.) This doesn't mean you don't stop bothering to do anything at all.

You don't *not* lock your car door just because if someone's determined to get in, they can. You make it harder for them so that most people will decide it's just not worth it.

The most determined stalkers aren't going to be stopped by anything- but why not stop the absolute shitload of people who are doing it because you're making it so easy for them?

I think (and have thought this before) that because you're an IT professional and you know how to script well, that you think it's a trivial matter for everyone, even with your step by step instructions. Im telling you- that's just not true. Most people in SL, even if you HELD THEIR HAND, couldn't manage the copy and pasting skills it would take to use your instructions. They don't have the *slightest clue* how to even think about scripting a damned thing. They're lucky they can figure out SL basics.

As to how easy it is to buy a hud. Well that's true but youre forgetting how unbearably cheap most people are. Seriously, people bitch about spending 100L. They're NOT going to be willing to shell out the (again, admittedly miniscule in the grand scheme of things) amount it takes to get a hud (or figure out how to use one.)

You need to be devoted to the cause on that. Youre correct in that if someone is down for that, aint nothing you (or anyone) can do to stop them. But most people causing this kind of trouble *aren't those people*. Most of them are the kind that could be stopped right quick if the information wasn't available to them within the viewer.

__________________

Joshua Nightshade

Like I've said repeatedly, the whole privacy consideration is honestly a strawman and focusing on it allows Tonya and people who are using her logic to dismiss the prevailing issue with "oh anyone can do it, it makes no sense to try and prevent it."

The salient problem is that it disrespects the preference setting that an individual has flagged, and it does this using what is very much an exploit taking advantage of the fact that those settings are on a sim-level as opposed to a grid-wide awareness. The privacy angle is irrelevant to me: I care about the fact that it disregards individual preference and that the people who want to disregard that preference are assholes.

Allowing Tonya to keep pushing the THERE'S NO POINT LOCKING DOORS IF THE THIEF HAS A CHAINSAW bullshit just muddies the issue completely, and that's what she wants.

Kadah Coba

This isn't a very good analogy. A better one with a hotel would be that you don't know what room they are in, cannot find out what room they are in, cannot tell if they have said sign up or not, but you can ask the desk clerk if John Smith is in his room. If Mr. Smith has instructed the clerk he does not wish to be bothered, the clerk will respond that his is not. If you say you have a delivery or message for Mr. Smith, the clerk will then tell you he's in, or dial the room and give you the phone.
That's still a bad analogy, but slightly more accurate to the situation.

Kadah Coba

The nosiest member of a group only appears to speak for the whole group.

Tonya is making the rest of us look bad and the only reason I can gather is its just to pose counter-arguments for the sake of having an argument in the first place.

Ayesha Lytton

Not endorsing, just informing. Marketplace, 9L$

https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p...HUD410/2463688

__________________
Solace Beach Estates: Beautiful Residential & Commercial Land for All Budgets!
http://slurl.com/secondlife/Solace%20Beach/193/48/23

Sione

This is a perfect analogy for one of the major reasons why people don't want to use busy mode.

Replace housekeeper with "best friend"/"customer with an issue"/"some who feels self-important" and you will get my drift.

"O hai!"
"I know you're there"
"Hello?"
"Hello?"
"Are you ignoring me?"
"Hello?"
"Bitch!"

Andromeda Rage

Even L$9 is a barrier to some people. I know of a small handful of people who refuse to spend one red penny on SL just on principle. (And yes, they spend hours camping out lucky chairs or whatnot.... if time is money I guess their time is worthless, or... something. )

Anyway, back to a french maid housekeeper "accidentally" barging in on the hotel room of a stud who just got out of the shower... wait what were we talking about again?

Qie Niangao

I was trying to ignore this thread. You know: Luddite. But I kinda have to respond to some confusion:
See, this is what drives me crazy. I'm not arguing to save the poor subscription list managers. Rather, I'm describing what they will do to save themselves, and why that's not going to be pretty. (And for those who think the response will be to just stop sending notices, shitcan years-old subscription lists, and wait for LL to implement an in-world RSS reader for subscriptions that don't even exist yet: Ya, you betcha.)
That's the whole point: Until a month ago, no problem, then the throttles, then the workaround: don't send to the vast share of the subscriber list that isn't online.
Huh? What setting? I'm talking about the throttle that would stop llGiveInventory 10% of the way through a 50,000 recipient subscriber list.Exactly my point: By being able to check true online status, the subscriber list script thingy can cut down the number of notifications it tries to send. That's better than just spreading them out over time (which would put the same steady-state aggregate load on the backend) and way better than spreading them out over owners and/or parcels (which would be the same peak load, even).
For the moment. But I thought we wanted this ability to go away at the same time as removing script access to true online status. Otherwise this is all pretty silly.

Aribeth Zelin

Also, comparing respecting privacy with the ought-to-be-criminal behavior of the RIAA and MPAA [both of which could care about our privacy] is both ironic and showing a complete lack of awareness of just how greedy and unethical those two groups are.

And its terribly insulting to those of us who do respect privacy.

__________________
Faerycat Designs In World -Marketplace 1- Marketplace 2

Aribeth Zelin

Also, I think that at least group owners should retain the right to see last on for members. I'll admit when I keep missing someone I like knowing how badly - is it just missing hours, or has so and so not been on in days?

And there is also the drama if you aren't on in days - apparently to some people its because of them and has nothing to do with anything on your end [like RL, being sick, not having net, etc...]

Innula Zenovka

True, but the point of the analogy was someone going round officiously removing signs on the basis they're easily ignored and nothing more than security theatre to lull people into a false sense of security, thus leading to people being inconvenienced by other people who wouldn't otherwise have disturbed them had this busybody not stepped in.

I guess the real test will be what happens if LL introduce some change that makes it impossible to log in without some patch being applied. I'll be interested to see if Phoenix do apply the patch (thus "holding back progress") and, if they do apply it, if they take the opportunity to remove this contentious feature.

__________________

Sione

I think that is why it is so much of an issue. It would be understandable to just leave it if Phoenix is dying a death, but it isn't. As long as there are users and developers keeping it alive, this remains an issue. It needs to come out.

What about all the old versions? Force an update. There is a mesh and a non mesh path.

What about all the people who are running really really old versions because of their hardware? Sorry, update your hardware.

It's not impossible.

Tonya Souther

We'd have to. Listening to our users, and all that.

As for removing the feature...again, we listen to our users. They say they want the feature. Whether we agree with them or not, we listen to our users.

Actually, no. The non-mesh codebase is dead and defunct. Resurrecting it would be a major pain in the ass and require a lot of work that, frankly, none of us cares to invest in it.

...or get the hell off SL? That's the choice there. Not everyone has funds to spare to update an old computer.

Midori Rotaru

So simply it is not a question of what is correct,what is best, or what even is moral.

But simply remaining popular with the most vocal.

" They say they want the feature. Whether we agree with them or not" ---so we must give.The total appeasement and lack of charachter implied in that statement is amazing.

You could just say no .

Jenn Luke

In a sample poll of 1000 sex offenders the overwhelming vote was to keep peeping tom status available. In my other sample poll at the local church, out of 1000 active christians, the overwhelming vote was that satan was evil . Its not very hard to get the result you want.

Tonya Souther

So you're saying we should be just like LL and not listen to our users? Or that we should let a vocal minority overrule the wishes of a clear majority? And no, the minority I speak of is not those who voted to keep the feature; it's the small number of people here who are loudly insisting that we should ignore the users in favor of their specific moral view.

As for a lack of character, I am standing up for a principle I firmly believe in: that the users of SL should have a say in what's available. Obviously, the folks here think they, not the users, have a right to determine what the users get.

LL has that power. Not you.

We can. We can't make it stick. Only LL can do that.

No, it's not. We didn't pull that kind of shenanigan. The survey was directed at the entire Phoenix/Firestorm userbase, which is reasonable since the goal was to find out what the users wanted. The response rate was not out of line for such a survey from what is generally accepted as expected participation. We bent over backwards to make sure that the questions were unbiased.

The results were representative, and decisive.

Aribeth Zelin

There is a difference in doing the right thing and in doing the popular thing.

And how many people have been lost because instead of being vocal just switched to something they felt fit their moral compass better?

Sione

You wouldn't have to actively develop it. Remove features, force update.

No just use another viewer, for example Imprudence.

Jenn Luke

With so many other far more important functions why did this even come up. Why is it not in firestorm? You keep saying its not an exploit or its not really peeping tom functionality yet you knew full well what the main SL userbase feelings were and wanted to ensure that as many of them as possible would migrate to and enjoy the hard work that all of the firestorm team, including yourself, put into that viewer. That or you got overruled and still got a bone about it.

Tonya Souther

Not that simple. There's other bugfixing that went into the mesh viewer that would need to be backported.

And as for forcing an update, we can't make that stick. Only LL can. Yes, we can block a specific release from our end, but that block is easy to work around. It's also going to be far more controversial to do that to remove a feature a small minority objects to loudly than the feature itself is. The load on the support team would go up dramatically, and we'd lose support people in droves.

The feature is not going to go away just because 10 people on SLU rant and rave about it.

Tonya Souther

The team has not decided on it, one way or the other, finally. We won't do so until we get clarity one way or the other about whether LL will do something about it. After all, we do have better things to do than work on code we'd just have to rip back out again.

Innula Zenovka

I see. So when Siana makes Singularity, you tell her:
but when you do it, it's "listening to our users" because you have to.
I asked you in the other thread why you say you have to listen to your users about this and what would happen if you didn't.

First you said that they'd switch to other viewers that had this feature, and then, when I pressed you on what viewers these could possibly be, you explained you meant they'd refuse to use an updated viewer without the feature and, instead, continue to use older versions of Phoenix.

Well, in this scenario, that wouldn't be an issue, because the older versions wouldn't work because you hadn't patched them, so you needn't worry about that. They'd have to use an updated version of Phoenix, so what's the worry?

If, like Ayesha, they feel they really need to know people's true online status, they can, as you've so frequently reminded us, go and get a hud from the marketplace that will tell them this, or, if they don't want to spend as little as 9L$, they can use your script, so they're hardly inconvenienced.

Who would lose out by your removing this feature in those circumstances?

Sione

But the mesh viewer was optional?

Phoenix Viewer Blog: Optional Phoenix Viewer Mesh Update

For who Aunt Bessie or Harry the wannabe hacker? 90% of people will just upgrade. That is a huge reduction. It's the same reasoning as you are using for keeping it.

Tell them to get over it. The blog post I linked above even says Phoenix has limited support. If you are going to force dealing with it on your support team instead of getting them to just not provide the support then yeah they will leave.

I don't think anyone really expects it will. This thread says more about you than it does about us.

Leah Mayo

The next opportunity to remove "true online status" from Phoenix will be when Henri declares his multilayers code stable.