An Open Letter To Linden Lab

You know, that that really pisses me off, and you knew it would. Once I figured out what you were getting at with your "certain quarters" thing.

The first thing you need to understand is that I'm extraordinarily honest, as honest as I can possibly try to be, even when it makes me look bad. That is why I wrote the sentence that you've decided to put in your signature. In other words, the comment about roam/p2p has started me thinking that there is some crack in the way I have been viewing this GOM'ed business.

I haven't gotten very far in thinking about it yet, and the only thing I can think of is it isn't as black and white as I thought it was. The point being, that comment has made me question how I've been viewing this, and I wanted people to know that.

So I said so. I could have just ignored it, ignored my mental wavering, swept it under the rug, and carried on with my current thinking, but I'm sitting here saying, hey, maybe I'm wrong, at least in part, and I posted so.

THAT IS HONESTY. Can you understand that? If you can't grasp that, or believe that, that is YOUR flaw.

Now, got that much?

So when I tell you I was not told how to feel about this situation by anyone, and indeed made up my own mind about it independently before reading anything from "certain quarters," I expect you to believe it.

And if you don't, that is YOUR problem.

This pisses me off absolutely no end, the idea that someone can't think for herself. The notion that two people can't possibly come to the same conclusion independently, based on their principles and their ideas of what SL should be, because one of them is considered a moronic puppet.

In truth, most of what Prok says falls into one of three or four categories in my mind:

(a) the exact same thing I was thinking, and how I feel about it (Weedy's situation being a no-brainer example of this)

(b) wrong - as in most (but not all) of his views on P2P, and on whether or not private islands should have had access to the Find list, and the wrongness of negrating someone in game for what they said on the forums, to name just a few things off the top of my head

(c) possibly right but it bores me and I don't care

(d) right, but entirely too harsh about it.

But I shouldn't be so pissed off at the insult. I should just feel sorry for anyone who has the kind of small mind it takes to even CONCEIVE of that sort of thinking.

coco

P.S. Let me tell you something else. Some people act on PRINCIPLE, not on personalities. And some people even have compassion for what happens to other people when principles aren't upheld.

While some OTHER people can't seem to think beyond personalities.

You're apparently having some trouble coping with the fact that I will uphold Weedy on this principle, and have considerable compassion for her, and be willing to point out which arguments against her I've considered unfair, merely because we all know how Weedy feels about me, and how quick she is to AR my posts whenever possible.

But you know, Weedy doesn't even know me. And I don't know her. And I wouldn't let a small thing like her unaccountable enmity for me stand in the way of standing up for her when I think it's the right thing to do.

You can't figure that much out, and think it has to be explained by someone telling me to suck it up and toe the party line, when that never occured, and WOULD never occur. Again, that is your flaw.

P.S. Maybe Prok read ME first, and agreed with my stance. Did you ever think of that? Huh?

Cocoanut,

I wanted to respond to one part of what you said. You bristle at someone saying you don't make up your own mind about things, and you insist that you think solely for yourself and make up your own mind about issues. Funny, that sounds exactly like being accused of group think. Sucks, doesn't it?

Don't think I didn't think about that, especially when writing that one sentence, and I knew it would be about one split-second before someone pointed it out.

I don't agree with many group-think ideas myself, or with many charges of it. Nonetheless, I'm talking about a hugely personal insult here, with me (again) painted as some sort of moron who always gets told what to think by one other person, not some sort of group-think phenomenon. I would NEVER be that influenced by anyone.

coco

Hmm? Sorry? Didn't catch that.

I'm so glad you don't respect me any more.

Nothing but love for you lecky-poo. Just have her back on my ignore list is all. Why did I say something wrong? Certainly I didn't tell a linden to stuff anyting up their rectum did I? ^.^

Nah I guess you didn't.

It's nothing personal, and I didn't say anything about impressing people.

I was simply wondering what the motivation was for making that statement, when you openly ignored it, and went on to argue with her yourself.

It's also annoying that people can't take on the ideas presented without ad hominem and/or trying to order people to do (or not do) things. Damn people, if the thread bugs you so much, why take part?

I won't flog the horse anymore here, so let me have it, if you feel you must, I'm stepping back as far as this part goes.

On the OP -- I see boths sides of the issue, it's a true dilemma in my mind. LL has to assuage people who are pissed off (rightly so) when they get fucked out of their land for making a mistake, and as part of the fallout of that, Weedy, who never, (and this is from my direct and personal experience with her) ever fucked anyone like that, suffers the fallout. (Funny thing, Mr. Fake Community Minded (The famous alt boy), who dissapeared from the forums a while back, is one of the main culprits in snagging mistake releases, and telling 'em "tough luck" when they informed him it was a mistake, or ignoring them all together. This is the type of person that screwed the legit people over. So, just like everything else that goes away in SL, it's really the assholes who have no morals or ethics that ruin things for everyone else.

Here's another, related issue. This type of thing also happens with the land list (are we going to nerf that too then?). Someone will set their land to sale for a dollar, to the general public, not realizing that there are people refreshing that list every 30 seconds, and then they swoop in and take it, and do not give it back. In fact, I myself watched that list sometimes, and though I've retired from the land game, I started to TP to those obvious mistakes to warn the person. I would even buy the parcel myself, if I saw the parasites nearby, just so I could make sure the rightful owner got it back.

If you leave a couple zeros off your RL classified ad for something you're selling, that doesn't mean that some asshole can force you to sell it to him at that price. This is a glaring shortcoming. I hate to recommend more red tape, but I almost think that the owner should get a pop-up confirmation, asking if they indeed want to sell the parcel to "Joe Blow" for "X' amount. Unfortunately, we live in an instant gratification society, which is amplified ten-fold in SL, so people would piss and moan about that.

*sigh* people often come on and say the forums 'ain't what they used to be' but one thing always remains constant to me. This person 'Cocoanut' gives an opinion then the usual suspects line up to attack!!! The ordinary person loves an underdog so GO COCO GO !!!!

P.S.

Sorry Weedy for what has happened, but reading your first post on this subject, you seem the kind of person who sees an opportunity in SL and grabs it. I think you'll do okay and I wish you luck. Don't ever show weakness by looking for sympathy though, reading most of the posts you won't get it on here.

people who act on principles are mindless drones

Time to chime in on a few posts.



Eboni, let me reflect something that seems to show up in your posts, more often than not.

If you don't like it, go elsewhere. Oh wait, you already did that. My bad.




ROAM was a good product, but the community at large favored P2P. There was a fraction of community pressure to change the public land system. As Andrew stated it was on the BLOTTD. By his own admission, he brought the changes "because it was easy to do". At the same time claiming that staff spent "a significant amount of time" dealing with errors.

I was not the cause of this problem, in fact, went well out of my way to avoid the problem of abandonment errors.

Now LL has to spend "a significant amount of time", figuring out and resoving this can of worms. In doing so, I fell through the cracks.

It's no secret, LL has poor priorites.



More often than not, I disagree with Coco. I even disagree with some of the things she says in this thread. The best I can do is point them out. I have supported Coco in the past, particularily her creations. Objects need not be elaborate and spectacular to be meaningful. The thing I admire about Coco, is the pride she embodies in her creations. Likewise, Coco understands how this decision has affected me.



Ano, you really disappoint me of late. In fact, you have become alot like "ye who shall not be named". Your friends list got shorter today, and I would not be suprised if it's a trend.

You seem content with injecting your distaste for things in nearly every post lately despite who you step on. It rarely has anything to with the topic at hand, insomuch as obssesively convincing everyone that you are never wrong. Even when J Wu came at me here with false statements, you jumped on the bandwagon. Then when it was pointed out to you, rather than apologize, you came at me from a different angle.

Disingenuous is the word that comes to mind.



Nolan makes a couple of strong points here. First, he is right about my compassion for those who abandoned their land. Never, ever, ever, under any circumstances, did I take land from someone who did not intend to abandon. I know for an absolute fact, that I have returned more land than LL ever would have in some cases, particularily where group disputes occur. I say this time and time again, but LL does not intervene in disputes between residents and the assertion that they will return it is a platitude, not a fact.

Secondly, he touched on the current state of "land swoopers" and some of the poor ethics there. LL won't intervene on mispriced sales. Why?.....BECAUSE OF ADEQUATE DIALOG CONFIRMATION. That said, abandoned land had the IDENTICAL confirmations, now why all of a sudden, does LL feel the need to revisit that?

Giving abandoned land to the swoopers does nothing to fix the swooping situation, in fact it only broadens an undesireable bi-product of it, and to a larger extent.

Do you see the irony?



Most times, I see J Wu as tongue in cheek and not to be taken seriously. Sadly, he often comes in at awkward times. Laughing at funerals or juggling scalpels during first aid lessons are rude practices, but I will uphold his right to buffoonery.

life is tough. LL does what it wants. The game changed. eh.

Too bad it's not that simple.

In fact, the primary reason given by LL was complaints from customers that got screwed.

Well guess what? MORE people get screwed out of their land by land list swoopers than they ever did by public land scanners. Many more.

So what's the solution for that?

They really fixed the wrong "problem" here, in my mind.

Andrew, thank you for posting a detailed commentary like this. It gives many of us insights into how LL works, and helps us understand LL better.

It's unsupported. Andrew also stated, because "it was easy to do". which I think had more bearing on the decision. As Nolan alludes in the previous post, there is a bigger problem here.



Andrew commented on the situation.




Mkay.....whatever.

That's not something I'd be willing to admit in public, certainly not in the context of trying to sound superior to someone.

Did somebody DIE?!

there's only so many windows of oppurtunity available to me. alas.

I removed what I originally replied with. It was not my intention to attack you at all, Weedy, in fact I went to great lengths to address your rareness among those operating land scanning businesses. I failed to see the difference between you being able to buy the land after scanning and people in the land list being able to buy it, that was all. I never claimed to be right or wrong, just expressing my opinion - something I thought we were allowed to do on these forums, and that friends could disagree, even strongly. I am sorry you took anything I said as an attack, it was not meant to be. I in turn took your statements about me as a direct insult. Anyway, it is what it is - I hope you get this situation resolved to your satisfaction in one way or another.

I will respond to this post and be done with it from here.



I agree to this part, but from here, it went downhill.



You seem to have a real problem accepting, that LL has created another dangling carrot to the land swoopers, who as Nolan agrees, and stated...as being a much bigger problem.



Way to gloss over exempting yourself from apologizing when you were clearly wrong. As you say, you honestly don't care.



You are, for whatever reason that may be, anti-scanner. You have presented your bias as fact and injected that into your comments, despite what some of the underlying issues may be.



I responded to your questions...every single one of them, and backed up every single point. Once again, you are making false claims and inflaming them with snide comments.



Here you go with snide comments again. I have been affected by something that I see as half-baked decision making, and presented explainations as to why I think the decision is wrong. It's my right. Somehow you have a problem with that and seem willing to argue any point I make, simply because you hate scanners.

This Cris is always right, and everyone else is always wrong, is bullshit. Thats why I deleted your card.

I'm done with you. If you want this thread closed, carry on.

Likewise, I deleted my response.

Having arrived at a more reasonable crossroads, I will comment a bit further. I hope this clears the air somewhat between us.

I respect your right to express opinions in these forums, and I now understand, by your own admission that you never claimed them to be right or wrong. That allows me to see your points more objectively.

I make no bones about the fact, that I think this decision was half-baked, based on (somewhat) prejudicial factors, which are not necessarily right or wrong. They happened. I do have the right as well, to suggest problems that can or will arise from this decision and present solutions based on my experiences. One of them is "land swooping" and one of the nefarious bi-products of it. That was alluded to by Nolan, who I know has plenty of first hand experience in the matter. I won't comment further on that point other than to advise reading back a few posts. It's a very good point.

Your initial post, where you vouched my credibility and integrity means alot to me, and I thank you.

Anyway Cris, I accept your apology, while offering my own to you in return. I'm glad you retracted that post. It gave me pause to do the same.

Uh. Ok. Well, Francis and Rathe weren't the problem as to why we couldnt teleport exactly where we wanted, either. But it's ok to 'GOM' them because the community at large wanted P2P? I sure remember a lot of screaming, kicking and crying from telehub owners over P2P. And they even got compensated for it. Did Francis or Rathe get similarly compensated? Did they fuck. I guess they didn't throw enough loud tantrums in public?

And by your logic, it must surely have been fine and dandy for LL to 'GOM' GOM, then, since the community at large wanted better integration for L$ transactions.

Well they were not necessarily GOM'd in that sense, because afterall LL didnt compete with them by charging for teleports or selling jetpacks. You don't see me jumping up and down demanding compensation, do you?

Oh my! That's a question better asked of Rathe or Francis



While that may be your take on the situation, It's not mine, no matter how you characterize it. To me they competed with GOM, hence co-opting another resident run business, favoring themselves.

I see. I'm obviously not getting this whole 'when it's ok to GOM a resident business and when it's not' argument. So, apparently, if LL are making any income at all out of it, then it's bad that a resident business was destroyed. If they're not making any income from it, it's ok that a resident business is destroyed?

So similarly, in my earlier hypothetical situation where LL add swimming functionality, it's ok to GOM Siggy because LL wont charge us to swim?

It's all very confusing.

See, the way I was looking at it, it's about value.

ROAM provided a value added service. Siggys swimmer provides a value added service - popular, needed and wanted things that are/were not available in Second Life without these resident designed initiatives. As such, I feel people like them should be adequately compensated when their business model gets nerfed because LL co-opt or kill off those services.

By contrast, from what I can see, your service adds no value to Second Life whatsoever - it merely depends on your snatching cheap land before someone else so that you can raise the price and sell it on. If you weren't doing it at all, people would not miss it. In fact, from what I can see, they'd actually get a better deal if you weren't doing it. But because LL will now profit from it instead of you, it's a bad thing that they decided to change the way they release land?

It's a funny old world. I wont even attempt to understand the logic here. I'll just agree to disagree with it

We were not compensated in any way by LL.