|
Dillon Morenz
Registered User
Join date: 21 May 2006
Posts: 85
|
08-02-2006 18:13
Regarding this post which didn't get any replies: /108/8b/126562/1.htmlCould you confirm that objects placed on somebody else's land really are permanently deleted (ie. not returned to last and found) if the landowner chooses the 'delete' option? It seems to make sense for the two (return or delete) options. Why have a 'delete' option if it does exactly the same as 'return', for example? You can read in my other message why I'm concerned about this. |
|
Torley Linden
Enlightenment!
Join date: 15 Sep 2004
Posts: 16,530
|
08-03-2006 10:58
Yes, "Delete" should delete as intended and expected. If otherwise is found, a bug report is in order. Ongoing thoughtline about this: From: Dillon Morenz It seems to make sense for the two (return or delete) options. Why have a 'delete' option if it does exactly the same as 'return', for example? You can read in my other message why I'm concerned about this. Guy and I had a chat about this... about why "Delete" might not make much sense. It might be destructive in some situations, and it'd suffice to just "Return". I'm not outright sure of this, but please also check the permissions--I have *heard* that if you delete someone else's no-copy object from your land, it'll be returned to them but I can't confirm this at the moment. |