Tag: Second Life

Ciaran Laval (busy sorting out his new blog home) raises questions around the whole Teen merger / “public” profiles and decision-making processes operating within Linden Lab.

In his musings he points to a JIRA raised in August 2009 relating to maturity rating in Profiles. This is relevant not only because of the arrival of minors on the Grid (and I use that term to point out that people as young as 13 are “on” the Grid, albeit cosseted on sponsor sims) – who have unrestricted access to Profiles and such – but also because the way LL have recently “adjusted” things like Classifieds mean that some merchants now face an uphill battle to get decent visibility for some of their products (for example, a merchant based on Adult land now has anything tagged for Search flagged as Adult  – based on the land rating – even if they sell what are actually Mature products).

The JIRA is linked with a couple of others – SVC-4355 and VWR15142 – both of which open up genuine concerns.

Currently, as I’ve commented elsewhere in this blog), the rules state that Profile Content must be PG/G rated. Whether we agree with this system or not, that’s the rules. As such, the onus is on each of us to make sure that our Profiles meet this requirement: no language that might be regarded as offensive, no nudity in pictures and Picks, etc.

These JIRAs point out the inconsistencies of the system and the requirements as they stand – not just in relation to minors being on the Grid, but in general; and certainly, something needs to be done.

However, I still cannot bring myself to vote for VWR-15298 as it stands. Why? Because, as Couldbe Yue states succinctly in the JIRA’s comments:

my only concern is that some of the profile must be available for viewing… I have sold items that are pg or mature and these customers should be able to find me if they need customer service. They shouldn’t have to remember to search adult for a profile – particularly if they’ve had no indication that the shop they bought from was adult in the first place.

In essence, simply placing a blanket maturity rating on Profiles could do as much harm as good. Of course, one could argue that people *could* create “business-oriented” Alts to deal with the problem – but again, how do they then redirect people to their Alt if their Main Profile is filtered as “Adult” (or even “Mature”.

CouldBe suggests that perhaps Picks should be individually rateable, and others have suggested every panel on the Profile should be rateable. But again, is this really possible? And what would it mean, coding-wise at the back-end? Remember, it is not just a case of added a field for a flag: it is how that flag is responded to – how is the information filtered and then displayed at the Viewer end? How complex would it all be? Can the information even be handled at that granular a level?

The issue is a thorny one; as such, even if there is a means by which things could be improved, that chances are that no action will be taken. At the end of the day, the current system places the least onus on LL. And – on the surface at least – is the “easiest” system to adhere to for the reasons I’ve mentioned language-wise and picture-wise. A little self-censorship is not going to hurt us.

Except…except that even the most benign language can cause offence in some quarters – simply because those who are going to be offended will be offended because they will “see past” the “innocent” language to the subject matter. Plus we’re all hampered because even if we *try* to keep Profile due to LL’s misbegotten “sooper sekrit” naughty words blacklist, which can also land you in trouble for having an otherwise “safe” Profile.

Ciaran also makes mention of the idea for a G-rated, or “family” oriented Continent. This idea, again, is not specifically related to the arrival of teens on the Grid, going all the way back to the Adult Policy Changes farrago – but it would almost certainly benefit them hugely if LL were to show a little more common sense on the matter.

This is an issue that also needs discussion. Under the old regime, it was very much the dead horse  / flogger situation. However, there is a new CEO at Battery Street, so perhaps there is an opportunity to get this particular matter revisited – and get other aspects of the current situation sensibly discussed among residents (adult and teen) and Linden Lab together. Certainly, it’s why I made an open plea to Rod Humble in December.

The benefits of having a “family continent” cannot be reasonably denied or dismissed. I’ve listed some in my open letter – and there are more. It’s a fully win / win /win situation: adults benefit, teens benefit, families benefit – even educational and other sponsor organisations stand to benefit. Good grief – even Linden Lab would benefit!

No-one at the Lab has ever stepped forward and explained precisely why such an approach to Second Life would not work. Zindra shows that there can’t be any real technical blocks. Marketing-wise, LL stand to gain a heck of a lot (assuming, snideness aside, they actually grasp the concept of pro-active marketing – at times one has to wonder); perceptions-wise, they stand to gain even more. Yet they resolutely set a collective face against the idea.

So far as I can see, the only thing the idea has going against it is the age-old “not invented here” mentality: as LL didn’t properly consider the idea in the first place, it’s no longer worth considering anyway, no matter what merits it has or the benefits it could bring.

The question is, even with a new CEO in place, how do we make sure the idea is given fair and reasonable air-time? Office Hours are drawing to a close – and those still hosting them will doubtless turn a deaf ear to anyone raising the idea. Similarly, raising a JIRA is pointless: it’s been tried, and despite the phenomenal number of votes it received, it was completely ignored by LL.

But this doesn’t mean we should not try to somehow get the message across, individually and collectively.

I was bimbling about the Beta Grid this week, looking and bits and pieces to do with Mesh, and noticed that the maximum size limit for prims seems to be around the 60x60x60 mark, rather than the 10x10x10 we have on the Main Grid.

I’ve been told this size limit has been changed to better enable Mesh support on the Beta – which sets me to wondering whether we’ll see the size increase enabled on the Main Grid when Mesh goes live.

The 10x10x10 size limit is, like the 15,000 prims-per-full-sim limit, something imposed by Linden Lab as a trade-off between capability and performance back in the early days of the Grid, rather than a limitation of the software itself. Given server-side processing has increased dramatically over the past 6-7 years, and given that the considered use of “legally cut” megas can mean very little in overall degradation to sim performance ), a move to a larger maximum prim size would be exceptionally welcome  among content creators and hobbyist builders alike, and could quickly bolster LL in the popularity stakes.

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

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…