Category: News-Opinion

We have a newsletter?

Posted on by Inara Pey

So… I’m sitting here, hiding from family as January 1st drones on to a wealth of movie repeats on the one-eyed monster in the lounge, when this drops into my e-mail.

Now, firstly, in four years of continuous activity in SL, I have to say I didn’t even know we had a newsletter – I’ve never, ever received a copy in the past. Secondly, I have to ask why what is clearly intended to be largely a marketing tool being sent – a-la coal to Newcastle – to existing users who are certainly savvy enough to know the majority (if not all) of the contents? Thirdly, I also have to ask why no adult roleplay?

Obviously, the third question is easy to answer: the newsletter is going out to *all* of SL’s residents, including 16 and 17 year olds, so we can’t mention the “a” word in front of them. So while it may (for all its multitudinous faults) be a valid form of role-play, Gor cannot be mentioned. Nor can we even have a perfectly vanilla overview of the “adult” rp sims out there. By vanilla, I simply mean a broad, PG-outline, no pictures of nudity and just a series of Surls – given that minors technically cannot access said sims, this really shouldn’t cause upset anywhere – especially if such a section is headlined with a reminder that Second Life is used by adults who are – and will most likely remain – its largest user-base, many of whom do come here for adult-related activities.

However, this issue of “Sandbox” isn’t really intended for the adult users of SL. It is aimed squarely at the teen market, and has been timed to coincide with the transfer of teen accounts to the main grid. As such, it is the second of two causes for concern this issue of “Sandbox” presents – and I’ll explain why in just a moment.

The first item of concern is that it again demonstrates how LL fail to grasp their own platform. For nigh-on two years they’ve pushed and pushed and pushed the idea that SL is primarily a “social networking platform” – right up to shunting users towards Facebook on a number of occasions. During this time, the idea that SL was also an immersive, creative, playful environment seems totally foreign to The Powers That Be. Now everything is canted entirely the other way: SL is just a “game” (hence the appointment of a recognised “gamer” as CEO) – and “social” and “network” now seem to be banned from being linked in the Linden vocabulary. Rather than recognising – as their users largely do – that SL is in fact both a gaming environment and a social networking platform, LL seem only able to pendulum between the extremes of both viewpoints.

The second item of concern is that in focusing on teens to almost the exclusion of everyone else, LL are once again falling into a familiar pattern of “if we build it, they will come” – almost as if the lessons of the past two years haven’t been taken to heart at all. Let’s face it, we’ve seen it all before; witness the New User Experience and Viewer 2 – both of which were supposed to see adults arriving in SL by the truckload. Witness the SLE product and the promotion of SL as a “serious” business tool that was supposed to see corporations the world over flocking to SL to run their collaborative apps, hold virtual meetings and generally put their business to rights.

In each of these cases, LL have repeatedly turned their collective backs on their established user-base, resolutely convinced they’re on to something “big” for SL – and LL as a whole – only to see it all go somewhat pear-shaped within a few months. I seriously doubt that trying to woo-in the teens will go any differently; we’ll see a mild upward swing in the short-term, but overall very little will change numbers-wise. The initial interest will fade and those at the lab will start scrambling around looking for the Next Big Thing that will “turn SL around” – and we’ll be right back (to use a quote from television this time) feeling that “all this has happened before; all this will happen again”.

So, if there is one thing  – OK, TWO things, given I’ve already written to him on one of them – Rod Humble can do when he arrives full-time as the new CEO, it is to get the company to start regarding its existing user-base as an asset, rather than a hindrance.

We – as much as anyone else – have made SL what it is today (and given the staff turnover at LL, possibly moreso than anyone there); we have made the investments in terms of time, effort. It really would be nice to see the new CEO recognise this and take steps to make sure the company actually engages with its users once more, rather than repeatedly patronising us.

An open letter to Rod Humble

Posted on by Inara Pey

Dear Rod,

Welcome to the world of Second Life – the good, the bad and the occasionally ugly, but also the always-quirky.

I’m glad you’re spending time in-world (incognito, presumably) to get a handle on the strengths and weaknesses here. There is much to laud when it comes to Second Life (although far too many of us, as users / residents tend to forget the good things while rending garments and gnashing teeth), and much that is weak (and in many cases justifies the aforementioned rending and gnashing).

It would be so easy to list out all of the latter and point fingers here and there (as some already have); but by-and-large, I’d like to avoid all of that and simply ask that you do one thing as you explore and move closer to officially starting: please take time to look at the forums (official and otherwise) and ponder the manner in which the Teen Grid / Main Grid merger is being handled.

Now, before any eye rolling occurs – let me say that I’ve nothing against the merger; in difference to many of the doom-laden posts, I actually think it will not cause the kind of upheavals and issues many are predicting.

However, what it is doing, as with other policies of a similar nature that came before it – notably the Adult Policy changes that saw the creation of the Adult Continent, Zindra – is exacerbating a growing rift between Linden Research and its community of users – a rift that one might say is already alarmingly wide.

While fears of Abuse Reports, over-anxious mothers climbing the wall over things “little Timmy” or “little Janey” might see on-screen and so forth may well be over-egging the mix – it cannot be denied that the decision within Linden Research to continue to mix both “G” and “M” (for mature) sims in single Mainland environments *is* a cause of major consternation among users – particularly because what is and is not allowed under the terms of use of each of these sim types is so disparate.

These issues could be so easily resolved through the formation of a “G” rated continent. Indeed, this is something Linden Lab’s own users have been requesting for a very long time – dig down a little and you’ll see it even pre-dates the Adult Policy Change / Zindra farrago that severely damaged the company’s relationship with a large proportion of its user base (and not just those forced to move to Zindra).

The principal ideas behind the development of a “G”-rated continent have never been deniable – although they have always been dismissed in what has always seemed to be an entirely offhanded manner by Linden Lab. However, with the merger now underway, and with you embarking on your journey as the new CEO, I would suggest that the time to openly and honestly review the idea once more has never been better, and if you do nothing else during the first few weeks of your tenure, you’ll give free and full consideration to the major benefits of establishing a G rated Continent:

  • It removes all of the angst that residents (rightly or wrongly) feel about the current situation wherein G and M sims are “OK” to be located side-by-side within the Mainland
  • It offers teen users a far more enjoyable SL experience, as they can benefit from a contiguous land mass that will enable them to do everything that helps to make Second Life a fun place: they can race cars, they can enjoy large, urban environments, they can ride trains, they can fly aircraft, they can race boats, they can wander and explore well beyond the limitations of “single” 256x256m sims without having to rely on teleporting
  • It provides a “cushioned” environment in which those graduating from the “sponsored” sims operated for 13-15 year-olds can find like-minds friends and continue their growth within SL
  • It provides a unique (dare I say “captive”?) marketplace for those content creators wishing to specialise in “teen-oriented” goods and services
  • It allows for overall better marketing of Second Life to teens, presenting them with a “world” of their own in which they can create  – and at the risk of repeating myself – is somewhat better than a hodgepodge of “isolated” sims bordered by lands they see, but to which they are denied access.

There are many other benefits to developing a G-rated continent beyond these. A big issue for Linden Research over the last two years has been the desire to make Second Life a “better, more predictable user experience” – and yet, if one is brutally honest, the company’s repeated and continued refusal to openly consider the merits of a purely G-rated continent has actually done much to undermine this stated goal, and indeed continues to do so.

Right now, with the merger, the nexus of a purely “G” rated continent already exists: the former (or soon-to-be former) Teen Grid. Using this as a basis, Linden Lab has the means to develop a “better, more predictable user experience” for adults and teens alike; not only for the reasons stated above, but also because it does nothing that will hinder the healthy and proper interaction between teens and adults on a daily basis within Second Life.

I appreciate that time is short: the merger is underway: the Teen Grid is closing in January – but the mark of a good CEO is a willingness to hold up a hand and say, “hang on a mo’, I’d like to review this before we go too far,” and I sincerely hope you’ll take a long, hard and unbiased look at the idea, and bear in mind that – with due respect to all at Battery Street – sometimes users *do* have good ideas, and equally, users *can* have a better intuitive understanding of a platform’s needs than those that developed it. There is much to be gained from the idea – and next to nothing to lose.

With kindest and sincere regards,

Inara Pey

1.23.5 + 40=25?

Posted on by Inara Pey

I’ve come across a lot of dark mutterings in-world with people getting uptight about the “promised” raising of the Group limit from 25 to 40. LL had indicated they’d “hoped” to get it out by the end of the year, but also stated that performance issues, etc., may actually lead to it being rolled back, and that extensive testing was required.

Well, from my point of view, I’ve lived within the 25-group limit for so long (and can remember days when it was less than that!), I’d prefer to wait for the code to be sorted rather than seeing it rushed through, rolled out and then withdrawn against because it does end up further impacting the server-side of things.

However, in hearing these complaints about the “failure” of LL to raise the limit, a little thought occurred to me. Most of the people making the complaint, I’ve noticed, are using Phoenix / Imprudence / Ascent (development of which appears stalled). But…my understanding is that the raising of the Group limit requires code changes on both sides of the equation – server and Viewer.

This being the case, will those using 1.23.5-based Viewers actually get to see the benefit? How extensive will the code-change be? Will the server-side change preclude back-porting to the Snowglobe code base? Then there is the fact that Phoenix is already into it’s final release, and switches over to maintenance-only releases in the new year (which implies bug fixes rather than new code updates) to make way for Firestorm. Imprudence may well be in the same condition by the time the Group limit is raised, given the shift in emphasis there to Kokua once Impru 1.4 hits the download pages. So would the inclusion of the necessary Viewer-side code be classified as a “maintenance update”? How extensive is it likely to be? Given that most 1.23.5 functionality is gradually being pushed aside by LL (hence the decisions by both the Phoenix and Imprudence teams to focus on viewers using the V 2.x code base), will it even be worthwhile for said dev teams to seek to incorporate the new code if it is more than just a few nips and tucks?

Of course, there will remain other Viewer options that may well support the new functionality as they doggedly continue to work within the Snowglobe code environment; but again, this goes back to my first observation as to whether the server-side will support / recognise Snowglobe-based code? Time will tell, but it might be an interesting little conundrum all ways round…

Hit the road, Jack…

Posted on by Inara Pey

Jack Linden finally bows out of Linden Lab, and many are sad to see him go. I confess to being somewhat lukewarm in my response to the news.

Jack started out in customer support where he was noted for having a “sexy” accent (or more usually, a “sexy British” accent), and enjoyed a somewhat meteoric rise through the ranks. Which has been both good and bad – and occasionally ugly.

The good is that, despite everything else, he at least made the effort (mostly) to engage with users through his office hours – something that put him in the minority within the Lab. The bad was that all too frequently, this engagement actually came in the form of obfuscation, denial or near-to misrepresentation.

Jack was also the front man for some of LL’s most unpopular actions over the last few years: he took charge of Mainland, and promptly oversaw a massive dumping of sims into the environment that ravaged the market; he was “lead” on the OpenSpace  / Homestead fiasco that bordered on a bait-and-switch policy; he was very much involved in the Adult Changes; more recently he has been “heading up” the commerce side of things and also had input into the ongoing Search debacle. His office hours were frequently mired by accusations of behind-closed-doors deals and outright favouritism towards certain LL “clients” (aka estate owners).

Now, it would be unfair to blame Jack solely for all of these woes: at the end of the day, all of these policies originated far higher up the management chain than good ol’ Jack. But what isn’t so forgivable is the manner in which Jack all-too-frequently went about his work – for which many of those now wishing him a fond farewell in the comments following his final blog post seem all too keen to forget; which is odd given many of them were often driven to distraction by his antics. The way in which he often seemed to delight in creating upset, confusion and outright disbelief always suggested to me that he was not that concerned with assuaging the worries of residents. In this, I’ve always felt that he took on these unpopular polices simply because he saw them as a means of furthering his career within LL, and that dealing with resident anger and genuine concerns was simply not, at any time, on his agenda – other than the rare occasions when it suited him to give the impression he was trying to help.

So… I find it hard to shed a tear and wave goodbye as he goes; although I’m not exactly gleefully waving a finger or two at his departing back. Jack played the residents as much as he engaged with them – but at least he *did* engage with us.

With his departure, I rather fear that all we’re going to face now is a resounding wall of silence.

TOSing out the changes

Posted on by Inara Pey

“Ringing in the changes” is a term that goes back centuries. Originally used in terms of campanology – where it is indeed still used – it entered English slang in the mid-1800s to mean “changing bad money for good; in respectable society the phrase is sometimes employed to denote that the aggressor has been paid back in his own coin, as in practical joking, when the laugh is turned against the jester.” Nowadays we take it to simply mean “employing alternative methods”.

One of the common uses of the term in western society is around the New Year period where we face the opening of another year and are acknowledging we’re going to perhaps do things a little differently (a-la New Year resolutions). So, given we’re fast approaching that time of year, and accepting that broad changes are afoot, it’s no surprise that Linden Lab have thrown out a revised Terms of Service – and once again left it to residents to work out what, precisely, has changed rather than simply highlighting the changed section up front, or even producing a blog posting to explain the new ToS.

So what has changed?

Well, the core of the changes are around the upcoming merger (aka “absorption”) of TSL into the Main Grid and the throwing open of the doors to anyone aged thirteen or older. Here’s what has changed:

Section 2.1 Age Requirements now reads:

By accepting this Agreement in connection with an Account, you represent that you are at least 13 years of age and you have the legal authority to enter into this Agreement.

Clarification is then given that those below 18 years of age must have a) received parental / guardian approval for them to have joined the service, and b) their parent / guardian has read the ToS.

Section 2.2 Age Requirements for Use of Areas of Service (formerly Age Requirements for Teen Second Life)

Sets out the requirements / limitations of under-18s using Second Life, which fall into line with what has already been released by Linden Lab, namely:

  • 13-15 year-olds will be restricted to estates (called “Teen Estates”) operated by Sponsoring Organisations (which are in turn defined in Section 2.4 of the ToS) and which must comply with Linden Lab’s General Maturity Rating in terms of both content and activities
  • 16-17-year-olds will be restricted to Mainland and private estate sims operating under the General Maturity Rating and, at the discretion of the Sponsoring organisation, may continue to access any “Teen Estate” they have been affiliated with prior to turning 16.

Section 2.4 Requirements for Corporate Users now has “and Sponsoring Organisations” tacked on to the end and has the following statement glued on to the end of the original Section 2.4:

If you are a Sponsoring Organization, you agree that (i) you will maintain your Teen Estate in compliance with the General Maturity Rating; (ii) you will comply with the the API Terms of Use; (iii) you will limit the access of Affiliated Accounts of users between 13 and 16 to your Teen Estate; (iv) you are solely responsible for all Content and activities that take place on your Teen Estate, and (iv) you will comply with such guidelines as Linden Lab may issue from time to time with respect to Teen Estates.

This comes across as a lot of waffle that doesn’t actually say much – other than attempting to absolve Linden Lab of any blame should anything go “wrong” on such sponsored estates. Who or what actually qualifies as a “sponsoring organisation”? According to the revised Section 2.2, the new Section 2.4 is supposed to provide such a definition – but it doesn’t.

Elsewhere in the ToS Section 8, Conduct of Users of Second Life has seen some toughening-up   of the wording in respect of minors accessing the Main Grid, namely:

  • Section 8.2 (ii) now requires that adults will not impersonate a minor for the purpose of interacting with a minor using the Service
  • A new Section 8.2 (iii) has been added, stating users of Second Life will not Stalk, harass, or engage in any sexual, suggestive, lewd, lascivious, or otherwise inappropriate conduct with minors on the Service
  • Section 8.2 (iv) (formerly 8.2 (iii)) clarifies and improves the wording of how matters relating to age play will be handled.

Similarly Section 11.4, dealing with the suspension / termination of accounts has been updated to read:

We may suspend or terminate your Account(s) if we learn, or in good faith believe, that you are a Registered Sex Offender, that accessing Second Life may violate a condition of parole or probation, that you have engaged in, or attempted to engage in conduct with minors on the Service that violates this agreement. [my emphasis for clarity].

Outside of the age changes to the ToS, there is one incongruous change to the ToS that has been thrown in, relating to the taking of snapshots / making of Machinema in “publicly accessible areas” (section 7.4). The inclusion of the phrasing in the ToS when it first appeared back in April of this year caused much gnashing of teeth. It’ll be interesting to see if its removal will be noted in any way…

Overall, these are not in and of themselves major changes. The main area of concern is that, in typical fashion for these kinds of documents, the ToS is more about protecting Linden Lab against any perceived wrongdoing with the upcoming changes that it is about anything else. As such, people (assuming they read the new ToS prior to agreeing to it) will continue to rend cloth and scatter ashes ahead of the upcoming changes. And while is it true that a part of me is concerned at the one-way flow of things here (it would be nice to have some kind of visual indicator, for example that the individual you’ve bumped into in a store is actually a minor rather than, say, an adult operating a below “average height” avatar that looks like a minor), I’m still not convinced that the arrival of Teens onto the Main Grid will be the God-awful disaster many seem to believe. And in truth, outside of the sheer woollyness of Section 2.4, it’s hard to see how else things could have been worded.

Casper, Apez, clarifications and the future

Posted on by Inara Pey

With the reported closure of Apez, rumours started circulating to the effect that CasperVend, which had produced a means of helping content creators utilising the Apez iVend system to migrate to Casper’s own systems, were in fact Apez  rebranded.

Such were the scale of these rumours, that Casper Warden, head of CasperVend, issued a strongly-worded and entirely open rebuttal to the claims – and full marks to him for doing so.  While there are still issues surrounding Apez itself none of them have anything to do with CasperVend, which has provided an extraordinary opportunity to ease the pain of existing Apez customers – and has done so with the minimum of additional headaches.

So, kudos again to Casper.

In the meantime, Apez have sold their land holdings in Second Life, with the monies raised being put towards honouring outstanding withdrawal requests – which is also good news.

However, as of today, Weds. 8th December 2010, account balances that have not had a withdrawal ticket posted against them have apparently been voided. It is unclear as to how many accounts are affected, but again, given that Apez was not operating as a bank, nor – I understand – were monies deposited via in-world ATMS or pending withdrawal by merchants intended to be used in support of other aspects of the Apez business, it still seems extraordinary that they are now apparently baulking at honouring all outstanding accounts by introducing an entirely arbitrary deadline by which account withdrawal tickets must be submitted.

If it remains the case that Apex are unable to honour all account holders with a full repayment of funds deposited (less the obvious commission, in the case of deposits via vendor sales). then it is hard to see how any potential purchaser will benefit in taking on the Apez brand.