POLL: Inventory Management

Most of us are American. Once something is provided for us at no direct cost, it becomes an entitlement that we are due to receive forever. The fact that it indirectly costs us a fortune to support bulky federal programs that spend most of their budget (our money) on administration and barely do anything remotely effective is entirely beside the point.

Bloated inventories cost us downtime, lagtime, and ultimately higher fees to pay for the constant revamps and expansions of the asset system. A simple limit on the amount of storage we could use would save us (not LL, us, the residents, us) time and money. But the general response we get from the population is "the day they cap my inventory is the day I leave SL forever."

It's to be expected. It's how we were raised. Blame my parents.

I'm American. I do not think this way. Hm. Ok. I'll grant you the word 'think' is key. But I resolutely avoid the temptation to engage in a political discussion.

Oh yeah, by the way, bump looking for more votes. Here's a good opportunity to be heard. Use it.

Yes you do and if you don't engage me in this discussion I'll perpetrate attacks on your person that will get your thread locked so there even!

Oh I just don't do the troll thing very well do I? Your point about education is spot. People did actually trim their inventories when Philip asked us to. In fact, we almost crashed the asset system by deleting vast numbers of items so quickly that it couldn't keep up. But I still think a limit, or tierage or something is going to have to be imposed. We're just too keen on pack ratting available storage to leave it open ended.

If we could compile a fairly squarish picture of the SL architecture, we could put it on a tshirt with a logo such as "Save Our System" across it. When people asked, we'd have their attention long enough to explain the problem and what they could do to help.

ROFL!



That is a really great idea. Hmm.

Client-side storage would kill me, and go against the fundamental thin-client model SL is built on. I run SL on three different machines, one at work and two at home, so I really benefit from all my stuff being held on LL's servers. Updates would also be a nightmare, I'm sure, since you cannot control what version a client is running, you have to build the updates to upgrade from any previous version. I voted for a fee above a certain amount, just to reflect that storage isn't free.

I'm curious why you think client side storage would kill you. The only storage we're talking about are your own inventory items. Not the world's.

The rest can be handled in the code, and no, nightmares would not necessarily be required.

The fee above a threshold is a valid option. They all are, really. The purpose of the poll is to see who thinks which is 'most valid'. Not necessarily to debate them.

There are alternatives. I am meticulous about keeping my inventory clean and organized, and I've found those storage boxes by THiNC are about the best thing ever. Instead of having 1000's of items in my invo, I just have a few boxes. For someone like me, that's perfect.

Astrin, I believe most of the people who tout local storage support it as an optional feature wiht the resident having full control over what items in their inventory are downloaded and which remain on the LL servers. It would be confusing and inconvenient, to those of us that access The Grid from varying locations and machines, if that were an arbitrary automated decision.

The more I think about charging for excess storage, the less I think it's a good idea. LL doesn't let us pay for extra primmage now because it would defeat the purpose of having the limit which is to maintain a reasonably lag free environment (no pun intended). The same is true for storage. Once they determine, assuming they do it intelligently, a reasonable storage limit per av, they'll need to enforce that with no more provision because it'll be based on a balance of the asset system's ability to support a given number of accounts.