EVERYTHING That LL Needs to Update about Groups In a Nutshell

I have taken ALL the ideas I have posted and ALL Ideas all of other people posted about group updates that were actually useful and put them together lol. What LL needs to upgrade on groups is:

- From: me lmao
The group menu and group interface and the group management and everything about the group need a little updates. First, there should be a way for the group members to donate to a "bank account" contained in the group's money tab (you know I mean a bank account as the thing that regular SL ppl keep their money in, except just the group as a whole holds it), and only the groups leader and the ppl the leader sets as treasurers or something can take out money.
Next, there should be a updated group speak, where the whole group can speak in a jointed channel private from everyone else, and the peoples names are in different colors, and you can assign them colors by their names or you can assign all officers orange and all members yellow and the group leader red or soemthing.
One last thing, it is really hard to know if someone is IM ing you sometimes, like if you are hard at work and stuff you don't notice the little sound and the button come up so in groups and in IM total there should be a little ringer button that you push in the IM window. This button makes a ringing noise and stuff, to stop the losers that try to annoy ppl you can choose to turn this function off in the IM menu or something like that.

- From: Hello Toonie
I would like to propose that each group has a shared inventory area which becomes accessable to members of that group.

Officers of the group (and/or people with a particular capabality flag for the group, if that's the way group roles are going) have read/write access to this inventory area, while normal members have read-only access to the inventory area which works like the existing 'Library' folder.

The group shared inventory would appear as a top-level folder like the 'Library' and 'My Inventory' folders.

-From: Blaze Montale
No Group Limits!

I'd love to see the maximum number of groups allowed removed, or at least increased. I'm forever leaving groups I want to be in for other, more pressing needs. I could easily see myself affiliated with 30 or even 50 groups, eventually.

- From: Travis Lambert
Donate Tier to Individual in addition to Group?
I was reading the notes from the meetings - Robin/Jeska/Daniel appeared to indicate that one of the things that was being worked on, was a way to designate land permissions to a group - without actually deeding the land to the group.

- From: Wayfinder Wishbringer
1. MORE GROUPS. 15 simply isn't enough. In informal polls we've taken, the standard thought is we need 100-200 groups... or even turn it from static to dynamic format (ie, unlimited groups).

2. GROUP ANNOUNCEMENT. Currently there is absolutely no effective way for a founder or officer of a group to contact the group entire. The Group Announcement would be like a single-message IM that would have a limit of no less than 1024 characters and would go out to ALL group members, both online and (if offline) to email. This feature should be available only to officers, not standard members.

3. GROUP NEWSLETTER. This would basically be a notecard that could be sent to all group members at once and would be stored in the Notecard folder. If they're online, they'll get the newsletter immediately, just like any notecard. If they are offline, they will receive an email note telling them the NAME OF THE GROUP that sent the newsletter and the NAME of the newsletter so they may easily find it. This feature should be available only to officers, not standard members.

4. GROUP MUTE. Larger groups can create incredible amounts of spam. People should be able to mute group chatter the same way they mute individuals if the chatter becomes excessive. The person should be able to set the mute for "this session only" or "permanent" (recognizing of course that muting a group virtually cuts them off from group contact). Even if a group is muted, members would still receive Group Announcements and Group Newsletter (otherwise, why belong to the group?).

5. TWO TYPES OF GROUP. Currently, groups are set up like a board of directors. Sometimes officers get into place and abuse the group-- and there is no way to oust them from office (the current "recall" system is faulty and often abused). There needs to be a type of group in which the FOUNDER may oust an officer. A founder should never be able to be removed from a group without his/her permission in order to prevent "hostile takeover". If this is implemented, the founder of existing groups should be able to choose which format the group shall take. That format may be changed at decision of founder (if officer-run group is desired) or vote of officers (if founder-run group is desired). Of course, LL should be open to mediating internal group disputes during such a changeover.

- From: Midtown Bienenstich
For Founder Only

o Founds Group, Pays $100
o Names Group

Functions for Officers/Founder Only

o Decides To Keep Open or Invitation-Only Membership
o Decides to Make Public Group Name in FIND GROUPS
o Decides to Make Public Members' Names
o Invites Members
o Expels Members
o Invites Officers
o Expels Officers (currently not possible as officer recall was removed)
o Names Titles
o Pays Purchase Price of Land When Buying for Group
o Names Land and Describes Land
o Puts Land in Find Places With Check-Off ($30 Fee Debits Equally from All)
o Puts Classified Ad on Land Parcel
o Sets Landing Point
o Returns Prims
o Parcels Land
o Sets Music/Video Stream
o Sets Land to Sale to Anyone Out of Group
o Puts Land to Sale to Specific Person
o Takes Land Out of Group Through $0 Sale to Self
o Accepts Deeded Land Contributions
o Announces Events on Events Calendar
o Deeds Objects
o Collects Portion of Membership Fee
o Sets About Land Options (Edit, Fly, Outside Scripts, Damage, Create/Edit, Landmark,)

For Officers and Members Also

o Starts Election to Move from Member to Officer
o Pays Tier Contributed to Group
o Announces Events on Events Calendar
o Sets Home to Here on Group Land
o Makes Proposals for Votes
o Makes Group IMs
o Collects Portion of Income
o Collects Portion of Dwell
o Leaves Group

Basic Concepts that Should Be Goals of Group Tool Reform:

1. The Founder must be able to choose between keeping the right to handle all the functions to him/herself - or delegate them to others. Flexibility and customization are the rule here, rather than enforcement of pre-conceived notions of groups.

2. The group reform should not be a compromise between different models of how groups should be run in SL, but deliver *choice* as to how groups can be created for different purposes.

3. The reforms should either grandfather, or override and encompass, existing groups as they are now, with officer/member designations, etc.

Basic Suggestions for Changes:

1. There should be a way to keep accounts of tier and cash contributions to groups, i.e. a "treaurer" function held by the founder or delegated to officers. The founder must be able to decide to hold all group income, or to apportion it among officers only, or allow it to circulate equally to all officers and members, as in current model.

2. A function is needed whereby land purchased by one member or officer could be deeded for the group's use, and the group's return of prims from it, so that the original owner could retain the control over it to pull it back out of the group, and no other member or officer could sell it but him.

3. The Lindens must drop the current system whereby the founder calls up LL and asks to have an officer removed. Either officer recall should be reinstated *for the officer class only and not members* and NOT be anonymous, or the founder should have the option, within his own set of tools, to remove any officer at his will.

4. A feature for group communications, whereby messages can be sent to the group online and offline, and possibly also notecards delivered to all, should be created. The voting system is currently used as a workaround for such communications but should be reserved just for actual voting proposals so that voting spam doesn't keep reaching members for days.

5. Group features should contain an option for only officers, and not members, initiating group messages to those online/offline.

6. There should be an option for remaining in a group, and following group IMs if desired, but not be compelled to be spammed with them, i.e. shutting off group IMs temporarily.

7. A solution must be found to the problem of groups with founders now absent or who have left SL, if certain functions only accrue to founders. Rather than creating cumbersome "officer recall" type voting procedures to vote founders out of groups, which opens up the problem of theft of land and lack of trust again, a determination should be made whether this is significant enough of issue to solve it by either manual LL changes with written requests, or by simply making new groups beyond the original group.

8. The limit of 15 groups per avatar should be increased to as many as can be coded now.

9. Groups should not disband after 3 days because they have less than 3 people; the limit should extend to 7 days.

- From: N/A
Officers of a group can, instead of the dwell bonus being split up amongst group members when its deeded to a group, the officer can direct some, or all of the bonus to a single person.

- From: yuki Cyr
in our groups we need the ability to create more divisions for our groups, like pay 10L$ for each division or we need more titles for people (i.e: officer, member, peon)for people in the group. also if your group is a paying company, shop or whatever, there needs to be a set timer to pay the group a set amount every timer (1 week=10L$ or whatever set time) and it pays from your linden count. *YES YES YES VERY IMPORTANT*

- From: Cyanide Leviathan
*MOST IMPORTANT IDEA OF ALL THE IDEAS, BEST WAY TO PREVENT GROUP ABUSE!!!*
This is a list of things that I think a founder should have the option to control:

1) Only Founder can invite Officers.

2) Founder can give officers permissions to invite members, manage land, invite other officers, kick members from group, kick officer him/herself, not give officer any rights at all.

3) Founder can give officers custom titles.

4) Founder can kick officers from group

5) Members, or Officers, can start vote or not.

- From: Zig Quasimodo
Allow a feature to create a group with two members. Perhaps charge a higher fee for this, as opposed to the usual 3 member groups. To enable partners to deed their lands to share tiers/prims etc, instead of having to trust a 'third party' whom you have no use for except maybe in a business enterprise.

- From: Levi Walcott
a feature where you can communicate only to members or officers in a group.

- From: Major Hailey
The whole group management is a mess. Instead of the black and white solution officer/member there should be a checkbox system though which an founder can assign rights to each individual member/officer - such as setland for sale, edit groupland,receive incentives on land sales or not. It makes no sense that a disgruntled officer is able to set groupland for sale that he has not contributed himself and the proceeds of such actions are split. Also it should be possible to use group-funds to buy group property.oh..and it would be really nice to have some reporting on groupland sales and transactions.

- From: Jonny Millions
As it stands i am rather happy with the current group set up but it could always be better. I think there should be a separate slot for the founder of a group with his or her own title. Why do you ask is this needed? Well the founder can exert more control over the group such as eject officers just like officers and eject members. Also for group owned land founders are the only ones who can sell group owned land. This will allow land owners to feel more comfortable allowing ppl to be officer and change settings and not worry about them selling the land out of spite. i know allot of ppl make multiple groups to make different titles for thier various organization and since we only get a few slots for groups having 3 titles per group will allow us to strench out our limited group allotment alittle further.

- From: Kismet Muromachi
Officers Only can create proposals

- From: Musimba Yellowknife
Just as we can ban certain avatars from our land, we need to be able to ban avatars from the groups we create.
Most groups are open membership and throwing someone out of a group is useless since they can just click the Join button again. So if I ban an avatar, an officer doesn't know it, and they re-invite him, then its all screwed. So allow banning that only the founder can undo and the erson cannot be invited to teh group at all.

- From: Vanhal McGettigan
Make an llInvite2Group function, Function works if the owner of the object is the Founder of the group. The Object would invite the key player to the string group as a member (or whatever specified).

- From: John729 Edison
Do you not like it when others leave objects on your land? Officers should be able to grant acess to have members return other avatars objects on their land no matter what group they belong too and return other members objects if they are set to the group. This would be a great new feature for Second Life.

- From: Kandi Valkyrie
Create a Group Teleport option where you can include more then 1 Avi into a group and then everyone get's Teleported when the "Host" TP's to the new location. There are instance after instance inworld where groups of people move around from place to place exploring and having fun. To send individual TPs to each is a real PITA.

If you can change the TP options to be ...
1) Right click on Avi and Invite to TP Group
2) Sending TPs much easier right from the chat box (along with viewing profile from chat box)

- From: Olmy Seraph
Add a top level folder to the inventory window, Groups. Under Groups would be a folder for each group the av belongs to.

Items with copy/trans permissions could be moved or copied to the group inventory, which would make them available to group members.

Rezzed objects that are deeded to group that are returned would go back to the group inventory, rather than disappearing completely.

Items deleted from group folders would be available in each av's trash until it is emptied.
Also just ass a give to all group members folder too, do you can give to all members at once


- From:* OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE MAKE THIS FEATURE* William Withnail
I frequently get this message:
Link failed -- pieces too far apart!

Please remove this limit.

For large structures, we need to be able to link primitives of arbitrary distances.

Bonus feature: allow hierarchies of linked objects. So you can have a group of groups.



- From: me lmao
Ability to put members on hold. Just like SL puts their members on hold, groups should too, Its like kicking them without kicking them.

- From: Nexus Nash
I'll make this short!

Have our group tools like a directory structure! Rank system (think army) have the top folder liek general, then 2 folders branching off for say the 2 devisions... then each devision liek 4 more folders... and so on!

With these folder option it would be really easy to simply right click on the selected folder and set perms/names such as.. this folder and below does not collect ont he dwell of the group... you much be say a general to collect! Being able to set the options from everything to collecting dwell, changing names, being able to alter group land, being able to invite, mod the description of the group, access group holding (items, objects) IE when we deed!

Questions/comments?

EDIT: This is what I wanted to add at the townhall a couple weeks ago!





Add Some ideas that may not have been stated above LL, Please make all of the ideas on this post a reality lmao. Sorry for the LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONGEST ass post SL has ever seen (I am willing to bet on that lol) but people (especially the lindens) need to be informed about what we all really need. Thx for reading and state ideas below

I've been waiting to see this list for a LOOOOONG time. I, personally, am the founder of the Second Life Police Department, and the SLPD has grown to, I think, 6 "subgroups"... which is too excessive. Not to mention the Main Group so that we can have group-wide announcements and shtuff.

My 2 most important comments are (because I don't want to repeat everything):
1.) PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make it so that founders can eject officers!!! I have division officers who REFUSE to leave, and it REALLY is annoying! I can't take it anymore! (sorry for caps and exclamation marks...)
2.) A group is all about customization. Particularly permissions. I mean, I used to own the SL Armed Forces, until I accidentally invited a traitor to be a general, then the "Traitor" invited 9 - I repeat - 9 more traitors, causing the whole group to be disbanded and my (current) SL life's work ruined. (I had outfits and everything... ah well, now I use them for SLPD SWAT!) And why can't the founder just delete a group?

Also, I personally hate how you cannot change your group title... I am always excessively nervous when making a group that I will make a typo and mess the whole thing up and pay 100L$ just because I did so...

I also like the Group Inventory idea... that sounds good to me. Whenever it is time for me to distribute a new Equipment Pack version to the SLPD members, I have to open everyone's profile and drag the folder... it's too time consuming for me. Also, I frequently update the SLPD Handbook (I'm trying to move it online so I can just update the website and send a message about the update) and I have to drag it to everyone's profile, then some people don't get it... ugh. I wish in the future there will be like a "common server" where officers can put stuff in which the whole group can access...

One of SL's biggest problem is the strict group system... this HAS to be fixed immediately!


P.S.: tre Giles, you are a great friend now! lol... SBS and SLPD rule!

Please VOTE FOR THIS PROPOSAL at http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1249 . Once accomplished, this will be the best thing that ever happened for groups in SL since the creation of 'em.

also would love it if the group chats didn't expire and to have the ability to IM people already in the group chat without having to close the group chat first

This is a great list. I noticed several re-occurring ideas here:

* The Founder should have a checkbox system for each officer in the group which allows/disallows certain privileges
* Founder should have full authority in order to prevent misbehaving officers
* More groups are needed
* A central group financial account fully accessable to the founder and whatever officer(s) he/she designates (I am indeed tired of storing group funds in my personal av account and having to keep all that straight). That group account should be accessible just like an avatar, so if a donation box is set to group, donations automatically go to that group account.
* Group communications need improved.
* A group "inventory" list made available (that's a new idea to me, and a good one. Imagine how much hassle it would save if new group members of say, StarFleet, could click on a group inventory folder and access basic clothing/phasers, etc.)

This is an excellent list of basic, essential and long-needed group concepts. Well done!

Yeah it was 2 oclock in the morining lmao, I was bored and tired and wanted something to do , so I was like, I want to imporve my group sooooo, I went everywhere and took everything that seemed promising by title and name. If I had done it before I would have found the repeating things >.>, but I was tired and didn't feel like it . Thx for reading the longest post of needed concepts that LL needs to give us ASAP. AH... if made complete, SL will go into a new era, one that should have been here from the start (If they can fix the bugs they just made). Hmm where'd I quote that from...

I wonder how much progress has been made on these ideas...

What LL are and aren't putting in the groups system upon next update :
/139/cf/107872/1.html

Summary of changes being implemented from /139/cf/107872/1.html, for those too lazy to read it, and to bump this topic :
1) Groups will have multiple 'roles', and fine-grained permissions attached to roles. This gives the founder ultimate control over the group and means that one group can have many customised levels of membership beyond officer/member, each of which has its own set of permissions, title, etc.
2) Maximum group limit raised to 25
3) Group notices - a way to send announcements (with attached object e.g. notecard) to all members of the group, even offline ones.

Summary of things that I think LL really needs to put in beyond this :
1) the ability to ban certain avs from joining normally public groups, to prevent spammers who are ejected rejoining and respamming so much they force all big groups to become invite only. Prop 134
2) a LSL function to invite an avatar to a group the object's owner is an officer of, in order to help make joining groups easier for newbies. Prop 525
3) members should be able to opt out of recieving IMs for groups they are members of by 'muting' that group. They should still get newsletters, and be members of the group, but they should not get IMs while they have muted the group, to cut down on spam that one gets by being a member of big public groups. Prop 1418, Prop 1068

Its finally happening, thank god........ Oh WAIT ITs NOT.

-The Lindens Strike Again.

Urls for things that should be worked on after LL have implemented the existing group changes :
* llInviteToGroup function to invite avs to a group from a script
* huge list of changes needed in groups!
* officer-togglable permission to stop non-officers opening group IMs
forum link
a ban list for public groups

* llinvitetogroup() and llejectfromgroup()
http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=916

* Allow muting of groups
http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=342
http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1068
http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1418

I appreciate that LL is working on the groups problem. However, two things are disappointing:

1. That they are only increasing group numbers to 25. That was the stop-gap measure they used last time when they increased from 10 to 15. It was immediately "not enough" and 25 will be immediately "not enough". It's certainly better than 15, but doesn't even come close to suiting the needs of the users. Siting a reason of "resource intensive" really is (imo) a programmer's way of saying, "It's a lot of work and I don't want to do it". Suggestion: simplify whatever is "resource intensive" and figure out an easier way to do it.

2. LL has announced that "most" of the things users have requested are not going to happen. Translation: doesn't matter how much you want it or how much it's needed, we're too busy putting together floppy prims to devote time to such nonsense.

At least.. that's how it comes across to me, a paying customer. And I'm sure such strikes a lot of people the same way. My prediction: group changes will be somewhat useful, but will be another LL "halfway solution". Why fix a problem when it can be patched for a while?

I do appreciate LL finally giving attention to the need of groups. But after more than a year of people posting in these forums over and over their desires for increased group tools, one would think that when the issue is finally addressed, it would be addressed fully rather than these habitually "not enough" measures.

Agreed, it won't be enough. However, the techs have more information then us, and if they say "we know this is a huge problem, but we still can't increase the limit too much" then I'm inclined to believe there's a real problem here. I just hope they remember to raise the limit from 25 to something like 50 when they can (and to actively work to make it possible to raise the limit when they can't), instead of what we get being a "we implemented the most important update to groups, but all the other important ones get left on the side for the next 2 years" type of update.

I agree, this sort of stuff has to take priority over 'floppy' prims. Graphical eye candy is one thing, it might draw people in for a few minitues, but it's the niggling technical details like the inability to keep spammers out of your public groups that eventually annoy people into leaving second life.

They are a half-fix. They are a real solution to 40% of the problems with groups. That's MUCH better then nothing but nowhere near what needs to be done.
I am disappointed with LL, but I understand *why* it is this way - LL has so much on its plate they're struggling to keep up with bug fixes let alone implementing new features. I think the solution is :
1) LL has to make more money then they already make, or get investment money. Unfortunately this is difficult as SL suffers from several fundamental design-level problems (example : mapping virtual space to servers via a "this region to that server" doesn't scale when you realise some areas will draw a LOT (as in, thousands) of times more traffic then others and you can't tell in advance which regions those will be).
2) LL has to use this money to hire more programmers to fix SL and implement these changes.

I trust LL is working on #1, but I think there's a lag between their working on #1 and their getting #2 done.

A few more good points about groups :
/139/bb/113588/1.html
1) We need an easier way to eject avatars from groups.
2) Ejecting an av from a group should close any group IMs that avatar has open to the group, and close the IM for everyone, not just him/her.
3) We need, in the group "roles" system, a way to specify who can open new group chats, AND who can reply to them. This is a good idea as some announcement group leaders may want people to be able to reply to their announcements, and some won't.

Kelly, thank you and the other coders that work on this for these changes, they'll make a huge difference to improving our Second Life.

I (and I think many others too) understand that roles are the fundamental rethink that needs to happen first with groups, and thus, it is only natural that the change from officer/member to roles happens first, before the other stuff. This is good.

What I and others are worried about is the possibility that the other suggested changes to groups will be forgotten once the 'roles' idea is implemented. We just want assurance that after the 'roles' stuff is in place, you will try implementing other suggestions we residents have made to improve groups, such as :


We're very happy to see 'roles' come into place, we just want an assurance that after 'roles' are in place, some of the other stuff happens too

What would assure most people here is a simple promise that :
"After we've implemented the group roles stuff, we'll then start at least considering if not implementing :
llGroupInvite, llGroupEject, bans from joining public groups, and limiting the IMs in groups".

I just want to be assured that the other ideas, beyond group roles, won't be forgotten and will get implemented after the group roles stuff does. That we won't have to wait years more for those.


With regard to the group limit :


I recognise that LL has a lot on its plate, and as I suspected, there did turn out to be a technical limit that stopped the group limit being increased.

Bluntly : if it's *impossible* to raise the group limit, or it's possible but you're doing it slowly in order to make sure that the increases don't degrade performance too badly, then I'm happy with this. I just want to know that you're making an effort to try to raise the group limit. We residents want things, this is true, but many of us aren't silly enough to make impossible demands - and we realise that there are technical limits. We just want to know that you're trying to do things like these if possible and sensible.
I for one am happy just to know that you are trying to do this. I don't expect us to get a group limit of 50 tomorrow, but I would hope that over, say, the next year changes are made which make it possible to expand the group limit to more like 30 or higher.
Thank you

I want llInviteToGroup and llEjectFromGroup because :
1) Groups are the major way to organise a large number of people and keep communication organised and reliable. Thus, I use them a lot.
2) Inviting a large number of people you know to a group, even if you know all their names, is a pain. Just like sending a notecard to a large number of people individually, it is a pain. We can get objects to give people notecards (and thus, can set up an infosign that gives people who walk past and touch it information about our project) - however there are many people who it seems are just too lazy to, or don't know how to, join a group without an invite. The invitetogroup function would be very useful for these people, and to save me having to explain it a ton of times. Thus, I do want this feature.
3) This feature isn't crucial, because it *can* be done, albeit (sometimes *much*) more slowly, via other means (giving people information about how to join in a notecard, which is what I do now).

This is why the invitetogroup and ejectfromgroup functions are on my 'wishlist' - because they'd be useful but I know that what they accomplish can already be done via other means. That makes them nice, but a convenience feature rather then an essential feature.

Contrast this with group roles - group roles do things that we just can't do via any other means, currently. For example, they allow us to have large, public groups which don't create a ton of spam, because they let us limit the "can create group IM session" permissions to a few people, for an announce only list.

Similarly, 'ban from group' is needed, though not as much as group roles, because with it, an entirely new class of group becomes possible - that is, the large, open, public group that doesn't get a ton of spam because spammers can be banned. I'm not sure if you'll skip that and just say "limit the default group permissions - take away "can create new group IM session" from group members by default".... but you get the point - llInviteToGroup can be done by other means. "ban from public group" can't yet, but might be able to be done via the group roles system.

So, I'd rate them this way :
1) ability to limit group IMs (who can start a group IM session, and who can reply to one) to certain roles - vital.
2) ability to ban people from joining a group - nice but unessential.
3) ability to use llInviteToGroup and llEjectFromGroup - nice but unessential.

I realise that I'm backing down on demands for llInviteToGroup and llEjectFromGroup, and banning from groups, to be implemented. I don't feel bad about this either. The reason I'm doing it is that I realise that with the group roles system, I know they can be done via other means, and I've always believed that LL should focus on making things which are currently impossible instead possible, instead of spending a similar amount of work making things which are currently possible but difficult possible and easy. Now that Kelly has shown me it'd be very difficult to implement llInviteToGroup and llEjectFromGroup, I agree that LL should focus on other things which working on has a higher return, like :
Give residents fine-grained control of permissions they give 'friends', and the ability to do things like group teleports, stop everyone mapping them, etc

Give residents fine control of push permissions.
This is the forum topic for push permissions discussion.

So yeah, thanks for the information that llInviteToGroup and llEjectFromGroup would be hard to implement. I'll focus on advocating other things instead which have a higher return on investment instead, now

This has been discussed and rediscussed for close to two years now ;0 Finally a great many of these ideas have been taken up for development..

Oh, another reason group roles are a good idea... they have so much comic potential in the form of funny <position> <group name> combinations.

For example :
With the new group roles system, there is at least one person in the 'owner' role at all times, right? And currently, things are displayed in profiles as <position> <group name>, e.g. "Member of Scripters of Second Life". Now, given that there is a group called "The Lindens", and given that there must be an owner role for each group, does that mean that the current founder of the group "The Lindens" (Phoenix Linden) will get the title : "Owner of The Lindens"?

For more news about groups, go here.

Push.... speaking the truth I don't want it gone. I don't want it too limited (but limited yes), or BLOCKED completely. I think that what attracts half of us to SL is the fact that we can shoot other people without them having consent to it.

Like the various two-bit armies that SL has (ie. the AN), what will they do when fighting another army if we BLOCK all push? Someone or a whole army- lets say, some noob militia like the ***** - will cheat and turn their push off and the AN will be destroyed (hey, didn't that already happen?) in combat again and again until they cheat and turn their push off, then it will turn into a “name-calling” competition, thus making the people who play the game to be in the armies and the "so called" griefer groups (which is about half of SL, am I right?) leave SL.

Plus the groups that are dedicated to stopping griefing, they have people who play SL just for the sole purpose of protecting others. They will be disbanded, and eventually leave SL of boredom because what they love to do they can do no more, there is no need for them, they feel themselves obsolete, superseded, or unneeded in SL anymore. You say what’s wrong with this, there are a few of you who will react negatively, but most of us would have a probability to respond after the update because we will be BORED OUT OF OUR MINDES AND ALREADY WOULD HAVE MOVED ONTO 9dragons.

While push (llPushObject) can be a appalling thing its part of what makes SL enjoyable, although it does need to be restricted a bit more then it is now, a completely infertile- and other suggestions like that- SL would be produced without the ability to push others freely. I think it will kill a whole lot of peoples SL experiences, and some of the noobs just joining- without guns and stuff, back then would you have stayed in SL previous to finding out that you could take your SL further then just guns and being a griefer after you stopped being a noob? I sure as hell wouldn'tve.

That is why LL is staying hushed, and I don't blame them (infact I would have told you all to shut the hell up and drop the subject) but still, I do think llPushObject is a dilemma that needs to be taken care of.

AND since SL is created by Linden Labs, a very….. *cough* immoral *cough* and understanding *cough* lie *cough* business, yes a business, that will go bankrupt if people stop playing their game, they must do what will keep players online and playing, even if it stops maybe a few 100 people from playing their game (whine whine, wa wa , that guy over there pushed me!!) by leaving push alone, they will. Because if push is stopped more people will leave SL then if it is left as-is. So that is what I think about whats-her-face’s link to that push thing up there.

P.S. oh and yeah, the group update thing, from Tre Giles, yeah, that needs to be implemented ASAP. Good now this isn’t an off-topic post


Ready. Set. Flame.

Infinite 20,000 m/sec verticle orbit at the drop of a hat just because the person enjoys watching people fight over camping chairs.
Ok, so I wanted some cash and was in Vardamir's Casino where Zach has his chairs set to timer(5 min) {50% -> money += 7; 50% -> money = 0}, so, I basically have to stand up every 5 minutes.
This woman comes in and takes the chair not ever bothering to stand to collect her L$7 because she, quote, "loves watching people fight for camping chairs." After asking her to move and telling Zach that she was being a b*tch, she orbitted me at 20,000 m/sec up. Entire sim, constant, unending.
I reported her for abuse 3 times over the course of two hours and had Zach ban her from his land.

THIS IS NOT A LEGITAMATE USE FOR PUSH
It did not require my consent. It doesn't make any sense to be blown to the moon in 2 minutes. It was abusive--she didn't even SCRIPT it infront of me, just, heck I DIDN'T EVEN SEE HER DROP AN OBJECT or fire a gun, I was just gone.

THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.