Second Life not good enough for you?

If TSO had listened to its players starting in Beta, when they were presumably at least SUPPOSED to listen to them, TSO wouldn't be where it is today.

I put my houses on mod/copy and no transfer. This is because people want to be able to change the wallpapers and things, but also - they might goof them up doing it and want to start again with a fresh copy.

And, as we've all agreed, put them both copy AND transfer would pretty much be game over, as far as selling them is concerned.

But it is a good idea to give people a choice - I hadn't thought of that. If someone wants no copy but transfer, I'd be willing to do that. (But I wouldn't be very amenable to listening to any sad stories about accidental deletion, either.)

coco

That sounds fair to me, Coco.

I am offended by this comment. There are plenty of us content creators who create stuff for YOUR pleasure and do not over charge for it. To say we all over charge is not a fair assumption.

Another question, why do people buy SHAPES if your broke?? They are made with sliders in the interface and you can make your own if you would just take the 15 minutes to do it.

Also, keep in mind we all started in the same boat.

Same reason people play and spend years of their lives in a game like everquest to have that best looking armor or the epic sword. Then some others don't have the time to do that, so they go and buy the accounts or the items for real life money. Not different in SL, nothing will be handed to you in golden plate just because you signed up.

You have two choices, either you pay real money to get all the things you want or spend hours, weeks and maybe months to learn how to build, program and make those items yourself. So, depending on how much your time is worth, you can easily make your choice rather than ranting how much everything cost.

Did it occur to you that somebody actually spend hours, days, months of their lives to make those? If you want to play a game where you dont have to worry about getting everything, try Sims (with cheat codes to earn money). Although, I just wonder how enjoyable that is when you can have everything you want for nothing in few minutes.

Come on Seth, just give me one example of someone bitching in the forums, come on, I dare ya ... wait wait wait .... come on, man, I didn't ask for a big list, just one itsy bitsy example..... beep! time's ups! ... see, I knew you couldn't do it!

People bitching in the forums, man, where do people come up these ideas?

There are plenty of examples of people who charge ridiculous rates for stuff.

I recognize that not all content creators are soley in it for the money, but let's not pretend it's some sort of altruistic endeavor.

*rezzes cube on floor...

general tab... for sale.. copy... price =

$100,000L

*lays back and waits for profits

-----

Y'know I can be as condescending as you're being, Snowcrash.

I have to guess that according to the book of Snowcrash, noobs
couldn't possibly have an opinion or criticism of SL. Nor could
we _possibly_ have ANY idea of what goes into making stuff.

You can put your sanctimony back it it's bottle. I'm not buying.

Well that's hardly fair. Despite the fact that I'm new here, I recognize that
people expend a lot of effort and energy making things.

So now I'm clear on what you think people should be doing for you.

Where I'm still a little fuzzy is exactly what your contribution will be.

Thanks in advance!

Sure, of course. You just want to make sure you can get a cut of the profits on the flip side.

Why do I, as a buyer, need to make a "contribution" other than paying for products?

And to be clear, this isn't about *ME* in particular. It's about one particular thing that bugs me, namely the inability to sell products that I own due to no-transfer. I'm sure other residents (most of which probably don't participate here) have the same concern.

And I'd be quite suprised if I'm the first person to ever bring this up.

Feel free to abstain from buying no-trans products in the future. If enough people agree with you, the market will respond accordingly and everyone will have their fully transferrable stuff.

And if not, not.

Using my name to attack back to me would be considered a personal attack. I would watch it if I were you. My name has nothing to do with the question you asked, neither did I call you a noob or told you that you can not have a criticism of SL. You asked a question and I responded with an answer. If you didn't like my response, then you can respond with your own argument or disagreement, not with a personal attack.

You can put it any kind of negative light you want.

But the fact remains that people should be able to sell things they own. At least as a "used" item at at discount to the next buyer. It's not about "profit" it's about getting the most out of the stuff you own and giving you more buying power to make _more_ first time purchases.

I'm not surprised at the push back. Just like in RL, people don't like to hear about things that might cut into their profits, no matter how fair that thing is.

There's more going on here than just roleplaying. People see issues that they think need to be addressed, and they look for ways to address them.

That's what moves the world ahead. That's leadership. I admire it even when I don't agree with their solutions.

I'm also totally confident that Philip knows the difference between somebody who speaks for all of SL and somebody who claims to.

I'm not personally concerned that this will gain traction. Linden Lab will preserve the rights of content creators to enforce licenses on use of their products as they see fit.

Even as a newbie, the lack of resale ability never really bothered me. The way I saw it I was getting hours of enjoyment or avatar vanity from an expenditure of a buck or two. That's a pretty good value.

A personal attack where? The 4th dimension?

Using someone's name in a post does not rise to the level of minor irritation, much less a personal attack. If you consider it to be a personal attack, the I humbly suggest that it's your problem, not mine.

I felt your comments were condescending. And it was obvious to me that even if you didn't _call_ be a noob, you implied as much in your comments.

Playing at committees, politics, leaders and followers.. that's all roleplay to me, when we can just send a well articulated and thought-out email to a Linden or a feature proposal and accomplish the same thing.

It's pretty clear that LL isn't going to give any slack to consumers, so I guess I'll have to negotiate with sellers to buy no-copy transfer versions of their stuff.

I can tell you that there are a few content creators in this thread who will get _none_ of my money, ever.

God forbid you just ask people to help you out. I know of very few people who won't do this if you ask politely (unless precluded by technical reasons: vehicle hiccups, script limitations requiring copyable assets in object inventory, etc).



Quite the barrel of sunshine.

It was a personal attack. Here is the definition of personal attack for you (from wikipedia):

" It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness of what the person said. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of an argument, e.g. the person making it (for example Snowcrash), the argument itself can be weakened.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how morally repugnant a person might be, he or she can still make true claims. "

*shakes head*

I can't believe you're pulling out a textbook definition.

If you read that carefully, you'll find that it doesn't say _anything_ about using someone's name in an argument. Except the part you put in, of course. I did not do any of the following, in case it's not clear:

o reference a flaw in your personality
o reference a weakness in your personality
o reference any beliefs you may have
o comment on your lifestyle
o comment on your convictions or principles

In fact the only commentary I made that could be even remotely considered about you were the use of your name and the fact that I thought your post was condescending.

You can choose to be offended by the use of your name, "he who must not be named", but make no mistake. It's not a personal attack. If I had made an ad hominem attack or called you something nasty, you'd have a case.

And speaking of avoiding an argument, you neatly sidestepped my other comments in that post.

I think that "personal attack" is a little bit loaded with juice. To be certain, though, DogSpot's remark was made ad hominem -- and served no rhetorical purpose except one of weakening his initial arguments. But I think that only improves your credibility (at the expense of his own).

I'll agree to ad hominem.