Show the Owner on first glance, the Creator on a button press!

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree! Show the Owner - Name and button - first, then the button for Creator!

(amending the text to include that idea and correct minor spelling errors)

However, there may be situations in which such concern over the creator is justified. For example, if a content creator puts out a weapons capable of crashing someone's client or forcing someone to leave a region, or forcing them to relog, or otherwise functions essentially as a Denial of Service attack. If this creator then encourages the customers who purchase it to use these features, even going to the length of suggesting which combinations of "attacks" are most likely to cause the most grief to the target, or even going so far as suggesting that certain combinations of attacks could crash a simulator, what then? What about when the creator then states, publicly in their profile, that they will not assist anyone who has been hit by one of these "attacks" under any circumstances?

And what if this creator then goes and puts people on the default "Foe List" of the device, causing the device to automatically offer to attack people the creator has listed if it senses them in the region? What if the creator has a habit of doing this to people as retaliation for complaining? What if the creator also puts people onto the default "Ban" list of the device, thus causing it, without telling the customers, to automatically ban people the creator has listed from the customer's land? And again, what if this was done in retaliation for people who complain about the creator?

At what point does "it's the user's responsibility" stop, and the responsibility of the creator begin? Should residents have the right to see the name of the creator of an object? Should residents have the right to complain about the creator of a product....especially through a confidential AR, when public complaints about that creator are known to invite unwanted and unprovoked reprisals?

Additionally, many content creators WANT people to know that they created an object. We WANT residents who see our creations to have the ability to easily edit it and see who created it. We want this because we are proud of our creative contributions to the SecondLife community, and because we welcome people to tell us if they like our products, or even if they dislike them and think we could improve them.

The only people who fear having their name shown on their creations are people whose creations are routinely used to violate the ToS. Especially creators of content whose sole uses violate the ToS, are intended to violate the ToS, and routinely encourage their customers to violate the ToS.

The JIRA really shouldn't be getting this personal, but it already has, so I'll put in my $L2 as well.. anyone taken the time to speak to Darling politely? I've always found her to be very friendly and helpful. Of course, I don't start off conversations with insults!

Darling claims that she receives complaints from at least 4 people per day who have been griefed, crashed, or otherwise harassed by a product that she makes.

Now, everyone who makes content in SL gets complaints from people, customers and non-customers. However, most of the content creators who I know, if they received constant streams of IMs from people who were angry about their product, who were complaining that it was causing serious problems, potentially even violating the Terms of Service, their response would be to consider fixing their product.

I mean, if one of my products caused a resident's map to continuously pop up on their screen, preventing them from interacting with the world until they TPed home or relogged, or if one of my products was causing people to be flung into the intersim void, or spamming IMs or dialog boxes or other sundry annoyances, I'd be burning the midnight oil to fix it!

But instead, this ticket requests that Linden Lab make it harder for users to see the name of the creator? Am I missing something here? That's some serious chutzpah! The problem isn't that the product is causing grief, no no no, that's a feature of the product, not a bug! No, the problem is apparently that this consistent stream of people who are harassed by this product keep contacting the creator! Of course! That is what we need to fix!

Is this ticket really....

No, you can't really be serious.....

You're really asking Linden Lab to make it harder for someone to see the creator of a product....

Because people keep IMing you to complain about how your product is being used?

@markbyron falta

I don't agree that it is an educational issue. It is a usability issue for the viewer. The viewer should make it as easy as possible to quickly understand who is responsible for an object, especialy for those who have poor english. My experience is that a LOT of people are making the mistake of demanding that the creater remove an offending object because they think the creater put it there. Some of those people dont even have enough english for the creater to tell them they are askign the wrong person. it wold be nice if we coudl help them contact the right person to start with.

I think it should be Major priority because incorrectly choosing the creater will result in no action from the GTEAM, but it will use up time for GTEAM members to look into a report they can not act on due to an incorrect name. The people who make this kind of mistake are not the people who know how to use the select object tool to fill in the owner's name on the abuse report.

@ Gordon Wendt & Jahar Aabye

This issue is about helping people report the owner and to ensure any IM's they send begging the owner to leave them alone are directed to the correct person. I once turned up to help a victim of a weapon that was misused by an owner, and the people I went to help are STILL spreating hate directed at me. I have since developed a policy to never enter the region where I know there is a problem with one of my products. be it my space city overlapping parcels or a trap from a weapons system.

This issue is about helping residence report the Owners when the owners are causing a problem, so that the GTEAM is able to do somthing to resolve the problem. If somone accedently reports the creater, the GTEAM will not find the creater has been in that region and the report will have to be ignored.

@All

I have never even been sent as much as a warning from LL for the behaviour of a customer who mis-used one of my objects, despite some people deliberatly reporting me. I can live with people incorrectly complaining to me, which leaves only one question for you :-

Do you want the owner / griefer to get punished, or do you want to waste the time of the GTEAM?

Darling Brody

Don't ask LL to make it harder for people to IM you to complain about the things that your product does! Especially when your product advertises so many "anonymous" attacks, perhaps IMing the creator is the only option for some people?

Any other content creator in SL would want to know if their product was being abused, so that they could fix it. But not you, because apparently, as I said before, that's not a bug, it's a feature of your product. If it's happening to you 4 times a day, maybe....just maybe....that should be a wakeup call for you. I see absolutely no reason why LL should try to help you hide your head in the sand and make it easier to pretend that you don't sell a griefing toy.

I would feel sorry for someone who gets constant harassment about their products, but you clearly seem to have no clue as to why it is that people are IMing you about your product, and you seem to have no desire to take the advice of.....oh, just about everyone in SL who's not a fanboy of yours, to fix your product so that it doesn't do this crap.

Please do not request that Linden Lab take a technical measure in an effort to stop a social problem....in this case your social problem of being completely incapable of accepting personal responsibility for your creations. It's my fault, it's Gordon's fault, it's the people who IM you, it's their fault! It's your customer's fault for misusing the product even though you personally encourage them to do so! It's LL's fault for leaving all these exploits open, and then it's LL's fault when they're closed! It's the fault of whoever files SEC JIRAs* about your product to close those exploits! It's Kerik's fault for reporting your product to SLX! It's Apotheus's fault for his decision to ban it from SLX!

It's everyone's fault, apparently, except your own.

Grow up.

*at least 2 successful SEC JIRAs have been filed about your product, to the best of my knowledge, and at least one of them resulted in a ToS warning against you. Yes, you were technically correct that you have never been warned because of an AR, but we both know the truth.

As Markbyron notes once again, the owner name is automatically filled in for an object if it is selected in an AR. So it is clear that what this is really about is people sending IMs to the creator. Swapping the names would be more likely to increase the odds of that happening by accident. Hiding the name of the creator simply makes it harder for people to IM the creator.

So again, why exactly should we do this when 99% of the content creators welcome comments from customers (and non-customers) about their products?

*******************************************************

Why wouldn't you want to help a noobie who is trapped inside an oversized commical hamburgar, and pleeding for help from a creater who isn't even online? These are the people I am trying to help.

Most inexperienced noobies use the abuse report function on the help menu and manually type in the wrong name, allowing the owner of the offensive object to escape any punishment.

Why do you think so many griefers go to help island? IMO it is because noobies dont know how to click the object and go 3 levels deep into the pie menu to report the correct person!

I want to make it easier for noobies to identify the owner of the object. How is this a bad thing?

Why are you so violently apposed to helping people correctly identify the person (owner) who can resolve their problem? Why all the hostility?

Darling Brody

*******************************************************

I am all for even small visual clues, such as making the owner name bold, or moving the items so owner is on top, etc. The amount of confusion that takes place right now from even clicking the wrong button by mistake is really high, and seems to be a very common mistake.

Angry people tend to be more rushed and less caring about their actions, it only makes sense that somebody who is pissed off is not going to spend the extra few fractions of a second to check and read the labels, and instead just click the closest "Profile" button and fire off an angry note. I suspect this is what happens in a large majority of the cases.

However, I think that switching the order of the listing of owner and creator would likely lead to more confusion among people who are used to the system as it currently operates. If anything you would likely receive more IMs from people who incorrectly believed that you were the owner, not less, if they changed the order around.

Small visual cues are fine. Making changes to the order is just asking for more problems. And hiding the creator name is fairly ridiculous. If you want to make the owner name bold, or bigger lettering or different colors to make it more obvious who the owner is, then by all means, go ahead.

If all I want to do is hide my name I can link one of the full permissions prim created by a linded to all my objects, thus altering the creater to a linden.

With a simple method like this available to me, explain why I am posting this jira, and why other creaters have also posted. Of course you can hardly see the other creaters in the flood off TOS violating abuse you are all directing at me.

Please note that I am NOT saying that you grief people using throwaway alts, what I am saying is that some people, when griefed by someone they believe to be a throwaway alt account, might IM the creator of the object instead of the owner. They might do this because they erroneously believe that the creator was the one using the account, or they might do it because they recognize that it's pointless to IM a griefer and decided to go straight to the source, dunno.

Yes, I do see that other people get IMs like this too. Mistakes are easy to make. Hiding the creator name is just ridiculous, and changing the order that the owner and creator appear is actually more likely to cause this situation to occur more frequently. Do you not realize that? Do you not understand that if you change the order of owner and creator, people who are used to IMing the second name they see on the edit menu are going to continue doing that? Sure, you might prevent a few new users from making mistakes, but the older users, the ones who are more likely to click-edit an object to check the owner, and who are also the ones more likely to file an AR or IM the owner, they're going to be more likely to make this mistake.

These suggestions just honestly do not appear to have been considered very carefully. I understand that you are frustrated by receiving a large volume of IMs from people who are upset about your products, but honestly, I think there are far more obvious solutions to that problem. This ticket is the definition of what you often like to refer to as a "technical solution to a social problem." Except that it wouldn't even do much to prevent people from making this mistake, and might even make it more likely.

It seems to me like a good idea to make two columns, in lieu of the current rows. One column for the owner (on the left) and the other for the creator. On the top of each column, a label would read "OWNER" and "CREATOR" (with caps) respectively. Below that, a button with the caption of the name of the respective subject. This would prevent the new and inexperienced user from making that mistake, and it would force the experienced user to familiarize with the new layout. I'm no UI expert, though. Perhaps somebody can provide a better suggestion.

On a sidenote, I recommend all of you, Darling Brody's top fans, take your hateful (and unrelated) feedback elsewhere. We're discussing a client interface issue here, not your personal issues. This is a valid concern that affects creators of all sorts, not only those in the weapons business. Thus, on this subject it is absolutely irrelevant whether the creator makes a weapon of mass destruction or a furniture set. Focus.

1) I suggest we replace the text words "Owner" and "Creater" on the left of the dialog with buttons that say Owner Profile and Creater Profile which open the profiles when clicked. This will make it 100% clear which profile you are going to open when you click the button.

2) I suggest we find a word that translates better than "Creater". Perhaps "Manufacturor", or "Made by" as alternatives that will translate better for non-english people. "Creater" is a very bad choice of words because noobies and non-english people don't know we have the special word REZ to describe the process of placing a copy of an object inword. They are very likly to think of that as CREATING. Created in Japan, Made in Japan. Which one do you see the most? Which is more likly to be understood?

3) I see no reason to list the creaters name in plan text in the same way as the owner's name. I think the "Creater" or "Manufacturor" button should be more than enough for people who want to buy a copy of the object.

Advantages to these changes:-

1) No chance of pressing the wrong profile button. (take a look at how close and identical those buttons are)
2) Instantly identify the owner as the only name visible.
3) Less confusion for non-english speaking people in the translation
4) Less confusing for noobies who are just as likly to press creater as they are to press owner.

I would very much appriciate the personal attacks on me in this JIRA to end here. Such behavious is against the TOS and will be reported as harassment by myself each and every time.

Darling Brody.

Now, unfortunately French is the only other publicly available UI for which I have some level of proficiency. It is entirely possible that other languages might translate Owner and Creator in a more confusing manner, similar to how the French UI makes the Deed button confusable with the Transfer permission. That, however, is probably a separate issue, relating to the translation efforts, and would probably be specific to certain language UIs. Going over the new addition to the proposal number by number:

1. We already have profile buttons. I suppose that it might be confusing since they both say "Profile" so certainly making it clear which button goes to which person would be useful. The buttons themselves don't have much room for lettering, so it doesn't look like you could get "Owner Profile" and "Creator Profile" on them. However, I can see the usefulness of replacing the text that currently says "Owner" with a button that says "Owner" that takes you to the owner profile, and doing the same with Creator. I think that the names still need to be displayed, if only for convenience. Often I work in a sim with other co-workers, and sometimes I just want to be able to quickly right-click/edit to quickly see the name of the owner and/or creator of something, so I know who's project it is. Having the owner and creator names displayed is quick and convenient for this purpose.

One thing that could make this feature even better might be to make the "Owner" and "Creator" buttons different colors. This would increase the contrast between the two buttons, making them easier to differentiate.

2. I already addressed the non-English translation issues. As I mentioned, those are handled by the localized UIs, and if certain UIs are poorly translated those are separate issues germane to those specific UI translation projects. As for the English UI, "Creator" and "Owner" have been used for a long time. Changing those names will cause more confusion than it will solve. It will cause confusion for current residents, and honestly I'm not sure that "Made by" will be any easier for new residents to understand. Certainly it would be good to make sure that existing tutorials and knowledge base articles are clear on what these terms mean, but this really is an education issue here.

3. No no no no no. There is no good reason to hide the creator name. Being able to quickly see the creator name helps people who create content in groups to know whose project is whose at a moment's glance. This information is also available in the Inspect window as well, do you propose that we remove it from there too?

Besides, removing the creator's name also serves to make it easier to accidentally IM the creator. If we followed this proposal, the only way to bring up the Creator would be to click the button to see their profile. Ok, so let's say that I intend to click the Owner button but accidentally click the Creator button. This would bring up the creator profile. But because the creator is not listed on the object, it is then not immediately obvious that this is the name of the Creator. If I click the wrong button, which as you say is an easy mistake to make, then removing the owner name from the Edit window makes it harder to tell that you've clicked the wrong button:

"I clicked the button and your profile popped up, that's why I IMed you"

"I'm the Creator, I am not the Owner of that object."

"Nu-uh, it doesn't say you're the creator on the Edit box! I clicked a button and your name popped up! If you're the Creator, why doesn't it say so?"

Now, if you want the Creator to be listed in a different color text from the Owner, that makes perfect sense. I think that subtle visual clues that make it easier to tell which person is the creator and which is the owner is a good idea. Certainly it would clear up some confusion. However, please remember that there are very good and legitimate reasons for why people would want the Creator's name to show up on the Edit window. People are going to make mistakes and IM the wrong person no matter what we do. Sure, it makes sense to make it easier to tell the two names apart, but if clicking the button brings up the profile, and the profile has the "Instant Message" button on it, then they're still going to make this mistake whether the Creator's name is listed or not!

I do agree that there are many content creators who may accidentally receive IMs from people who believe that they are the owner. However, for most people this is a minor annoyance. I would think that few content creators would receive multiple IMs per day because of this confusion. Further, I would imagine that it is rare for people to be sending angry IMs to most content creators about an object being used for grief because...seriously, do I need to spell this out?....most content creators take care to make it difficult to use their items for griefing purposes. Very few content creators in SecondLife create objects that are capable of crashing another user's client or forcing them to relog, or purposefully using up massive amounts of a resident's bandwidth through packet spam, or causing massive clientside rendering lag with hundreds of microprims with llSetText(), or otherwise trying to make situations so unpleasant that a resident is forced to leave a region and not return. And then, of course, there's the Sim Crasher module that you discussed implementing in your March or April update. Thankfully you seem to have removed it before releasing the final update. Surely you would understand that the volume of complaints from such a feature would be enormous, that is a situation in which most people, myself included, wouldn't care about the difference between Creator and Owner, and would probably request that LL permanently ban both.

Very few content creators make these things. This is why even though many content creators have been IMed by people who mistook them for the owner of the object, it is rare to get such a plethora of angry IMs. This is not a personal attack, Darling, I am listing a number of features....intended uses of your product...and I think that these features may be related to why you are getting these IMs in such volume. In fact, I was reading through your website yesterday, and saw people discussing the best ways to chain together "attacks" using your product. One individual even claimed that his favorite combination of attacks would result in forcing the victim's client to crash or relog 30% of the time. You immediately followed his comment by agreeing that it sounded like a particularly good idea, and went further to suggest more combinations that would cause grief to an unwitting victim.

Seriously, do you not understand that stuff like that makes it far more likely for you to receive these angry IMs than any confusion with the Edit window will ever cause? Do you not realize that most content creators in SL do not engage in such behavior? That is why people find this suggestion rather inane. Maybe Linden Lab should invest more time in plugging the exploits that are used to cause this grief, that would likely lower the number of angry IMs that you receive by orders of magnitude more than any changes to the UI. I must say that I am rather puzzled as to why making it harder for people to IM the creator of an object ought to be a greator priority than ensuring that the object doesn't crash the person who is complaining.

Perhaps the reporter of this issue would not receive so many IMs about her product if she did not encourage her customers to use it in such a manner. I believe that this image helps demonstrate that the problems discussed here will not resolve the core problem. People are likely to IM the creator of such an object regardless of what measures are taken to change the UI.

On the broader topic as I content creator as I said before I want as many people to see my name as possible so that anyone can with as few clicks as possible look at an object I created and sold, or am selling, and view my profile, get the link to my SLX sotre and buy my products as well as hopefully spread word of mouth about my products. If you're products are working as intended it's in your best interest for as many people to know who created them as possible and the positive benefits of knowing the creature far outway any negatives by the small number of confusions that occure. You're proposal might lower the number of propsals but it wouldn't eliminate them and it would cripple the good side of seeing the creator.

Ignore this post. it is off topic.

@Gordon Wendt

That is not true. I am not trying to hide the owner or the creater. I am trying to make sure people who want to send an IM to the owner saying "stop doing that" are sending it to the person who can "stop doing that".

You and Jahar are obsessed with an old weapon that has already been patched by the lindens to not work, and has not been updated in years by me. It would be helpfull if you guys could LET GO OF YOUR PAIN and move on. That product has not been updated and dosnt work. Totaly trashing a jira with personal abuse every time you see my name is disrespectfull to everyone in SL.

I do sell anonymous weapons, but they are not anonymous from editing their prim. They are anonymous from SCRIPTED AUTO RETALIATION. That means if you shoot someone using the QBOT's Anonymous Kill, and your victim is using OverLord, you will not be automaticly killed by their OverLord hud.

Nothing I have said in this post is ralavant to this jira. I hope now it has been said you people can stop with the pointless allogations and look at how to help noobies contact the correct person.

I don't expect you will. some of you have been doing it for years now. it's like a sport. Harass Darling Brody and prove your tuff, or somthing immature like that.

Darling.

If you can't revel in the effect your products have on people you are in the wrong business.

--------

With that said, lets look at the proposal but before we can do that we it would be remiss not to state the problem and it's underlying causes.

Assuming I consider your grievance valid (which I do not; I think it is a check-and-balance built into the SL society) lets look at the problem stack.

1) People are venting their rage at you (via IM) about griefing that you enabled by selling weapons to griefers.
2) People are using scripted objects to grief.
3) The system enables scripted objects to grief.

Now the fact that the rage is directed at you via IM seems ancillary, you would be just as dissatisfied if people were posting on a blog, the forums, the wiki or anywhere else.

Each of the problems has it's own solutions:
1) Don't sell or give weapons to griefers DUH!
2) More effective social checks-and-balances. Tougher anti-griefing rules?
3) Better handling of edge cases that griefing scripts utilize, making the system more robust.

I don't think your solution will actually solve your problem. It won't solve societies griefing problem, it will only diminishing a social check-and-balance which might just lead more people to grief (good for sales but not for society). It doesn't address the technical aspects that enable griefing so that will continue unabated.

Social problems need social solutions, technical problems need technical solutions. Your technical solution will not solve your social problem, it will only force it elsewhere.

Darling Brody is the center of the universe.

You should all bow down before me.

All hail the Brody.

..... oh sorry... I'm off topic... I thought this was the talk about Darling Brody forum and not a jira about making the controls on the user interface clearer.

I guess in all the Darling Brody worship people missed the comment by Loxtrisa Ray who makes houses and has the exact same problem with people complaing about a house being over a parcel border. of course someone who is making houses deserves to receive abusive IM's too. How dare Loxtrisa make somthing that can encroch on the border of a parcel.

...we now return you to the Bash Darling Brody entertainment channel.

As a proud member of the ages old European sect of "Brodyism," I am obligated to protect and serve SecondLife, Linden Labs and, most importantly, Darling Brody. Thusly, it is clear to all that Gordon Wendt, Jahar Aabye, Strife Onizuka and their ilk CAN'T READ with any comprehension beyond 1 or 2 sentences in either direction - therefore, they will not only not understand THIS post, they will likely "attack me for mentioning their names in a less-than-glowing fashion by simply stating that they should pay attention to what the topic is ... while Our Leader simply can't spell worth a crap – er, sorry: spells creatively.

BACK ON TOPIC:

I concur with the suggestion, I've been confused myself by this seemingly simple yet "bonk on the head, why didn't we think of it before" fix that's likely been more confusing to us noobies than people realize.

That is all.

:o)

I am certain that most of the people reading this are familiar with Networked Affiliate Vending systems, many of the people reading this no doubt use some variation of this system. For those not familiar, the basic concept of a Networked Affiliate Vendor is that it allows a third-party individual to obtain a vendor that sells a company's products, place this vendor on their land, and then that person receives a percentage commission on sales. Fairly common practice in SL, one that is generally profitable for everyone involved.

Now, what is especially important about some networked vending systems is that these are situations in which the owner of the vendor itself is not the content creator and is not the person who is generally responsible for the products. They are responsible for keeping their vendor up to date and in working condition, but if a product fails to deliver, they don't usually have the ability to redeliver it. This is why in some situations, being able to check the creator name becomes important. For many content creators, we don't generally get angry IMs about our products being used for griefing....but we do often receive IMs about products failing to be delivered correctly, usually due to network glitches, such as the database errors that occurred yesterday (Friday). Allow me to demonstrate with a short hypothetical situation why this is important:

Alice comes down to our main store and obtains a networked affiliate vendor. She follows the instructions and sets it up on her land, allowing people to purchase our products there. Bob visits Alice's land and uses the vendor, purchasing one of our products. Due to a network blip, or for whatever reason, the product fails to be delivered to Bob. This is obviously a problem. Bob right-clicks the vendor to try to determine who to contact for this problem. He will see that the vendor is owner by Alice, but if he checks her profile, there may not be anything to indicate what to do about misdeliveries.

If the Creator's name is hidden, he will not notice that the vendor was created by Leira Ingmann. There will be no obvious clue that the vendor was created by someone else, he will not even have a reason to click on the creator profile button. Instead, Bob will IM Alice to complain about the misdelivery. Alice will not be able to help Bob directly. Hopefully Alice will be able to tell Bob who to contact within our organization, but there is no guarantee that Alice will know this.

On the other hand, if he can see the creator name, he will realize that the creator is someone else. He will click on her profile button and see that she is an employee of our company, and he will contact her about misdeliveries. She will be able to help him. Once one of our employees can double-check our records and confirm the purchase, the item will be sent to him fairly quickly.

This is one of the many situations in which the ability to determine that an object was created by someone other than the owner is essential for some of the most basic business transactions that drive the SecondLife economy. Hiding the Creator's name, even if you still have a button to direct to their profile, makes it more difficult for residents to assess the situation and denies them access to critical information that is necessary to make an informed decision. Let me stress that while this is a hypothetical situation, it is one that does occur with reasonable frequency in the course of our business, and I imagine for many businesses throughout SL, as Networked Affiliate Vendors are a major part of the SecondLife economy. When we get angry IMs from customers, it is most often about a vendor misdelivery, we almost never receive the sort of IMs that the individual submitting this ticket discusses.

As I said before, I have no problem with small visual cues to highlight the difference between the Owner and the Creator of an object, such as different colored text or buttons. In fact, that might even make things easier in the hypothetical situation that I mentioned above. However, removing the name of the Creator from the Edit window will only serve to cause confusion and make many common business transactions far more difficult.

Affiliate vending machines are a very good example of why MY changes should be implemented.

People like hippo who make vending machines that other people can use must also receive a lot of complaints about failed deliveries that should have gone to the owner of the shop. In the case of hippo the creater of the vending machine is not the creater of the product or the owner of the shop! In fact I would bet money the creater of the hippo vending machine's never loggs in under that account because of the overwhelming number of misdirected IMs.

I also run a large network of affiliate vending machines, and I dont want to hear from the customer directly because an afiliate vending machine will pay me from the "owners" account, so i need to hear from the OWNER to track a payment. The payment number the customer has will not match anything on my transaction history. I need the customers to contact the owners, and the owner to contact me with the matching payment information. This is true of any affiliate vending system. So making the owners name more visible on affiliate machines would also make recovering lost deliveries must faster and easier.

–

Remember I am talking about having a "Creaters Profile" button with that quoted text as the button label, and an "Owners Profile" button which also shows that exact button text, plus the owners name next to the button. Nothing is HIDDEN! Please stop saying "hidden" as if there is some kind of deception going on.

This is about making it more clear who your "first port of call" should be when you have a problem with the object. 99% of the time a creater can not help you when you have a prolem with an object owned by someone else, so why make the creaters constantly tell people "please send your IM to the owner".

...what benifit is there in making people wait for the creater to login, only to have the creater tell them to contact someone else!

Darling Brody

Edit: I'm assuming on your example where it says "(who created this item)" it would actually be the name of the creator and not a placeholder. Figured it would be but jus wanted to make that clear since it is important.

If the Creator's name is not shown in the Edit window, then it is HIDDEN! What is so difficult to comprehend about that? Would you like me to repeat it in ten other languages? If something is not shown, then by definition is it hidden!

Now, I would disagree about the 99% of the time assertion that you made. But even if that were the case, even in situations where the owner is the person that one should contact, in those situations you still want to show in the Edit window that the object was created by someone else so that they know that the owner is the correct person to contact.

But I'm not certain that the owner always is the correct person to contact. If there is a problem with a product from a technical or performance perspective, clearly the creator is the correct person to contact. Further, if the owner of a product used that product in an attempt to force someone to log off, I highly doubt that the owner is likely to be very helpful. Then again, as my attached screenshot shows, in that situation the creator is unlikely to be helpful either.

Look, adding those buttons next to the names, that sounds like a great idea. Even better, make the buttons different colors, too, make one red and one blue, for example. That's a great way to make it easy to distinguish the two individuals. But for *#$%'s sake, Darling, there is no good reason not to display the Creator's name on the Edit Window. Make it clear which person is the Creator and which is the Owner, but I think that many people have made it clear that it is essential to display both names.

The fact that you continue to insist on hiding the name of the Creator, when everyone seems to agree on more simple visual cues to distinguish the two names, combined with the ToS-dubious nature of your product, really makes me question your motives here. Do you understand this? The vast majority of content creators in SL are not so ashamed of their products that they want their names to vanish from the Edit window. But then again, most of us would be completely mortified if one of our products caused people to have to relog 30% of the time!

"with the ToS-dubious nature of your product"

Jahar, you have a single track mind that is clearly incapable of adapting to a changing enviroment. You have spent the last two years yapping on about TOS this and TOS that, TOS TOS TOS. Why dont you TOS yourself and be done with it! Your obsessed. You have an obsession with uncovering sinister plots that dont exist. If someone from the mental health authority saw your posts directed at me they would probably recommend compulsory treatment. Darling Brody is here to stay. You can TOS your allogation around as much as you like, but it will not change the reality that I'm not the sinistor figure that you are so desperate for me to be. Give it a rest already will ya, for your own mental health.

The fact is that you are only against this JIRA becasue I created it. You have not replied to any of the other creaters who have posted about having similar problems. You have a single minded focus on scoring points on me. You are disrupting this jira and you are deliberatly defaming me with your posts and deceptive off topic photos which have nothing to do with the SL user interface.

I have stated several times that I agree that putting the terms "Owner" and "Creator" on the profile buttons sounds like a good idea. I have stated several times that I agree that subtle visual cues such as different colors or fonts or text sizes might also be a good idea so as to more clearly differentiate between the Owner and Creator names. I did mention my concern about switching the order of the names, solely out of concern for the fact that many residents are used to the current order and might be confused.

The sole disagreement is over your proposal to remove the Creator name from the Edit window. I think that this would be a bad idea for a number of reasons. Several other residents have also submitted similar comments. Even the residents who state that they have also received IMs in error due to people mistaking the Creator and Owner have not gone so far as to suggest removing the Creator name.

It appears, on your screenshot of your proposal for the new Edit window, that the Creator's name will be replaced by text stating that this button links to the person who created the object, rather than the creator's name itself. Is this correct? If so, then I believe that this is a bad idea.

Here's the thing, if you were to rescind your insistence on removing the Creator's name, then certainly the addition of "Owner Profile" and "Creator Profile" buttons would be something that I might even be willing to vote for. Perhaps you should take heed of the comments presented here, and amend your proposal to include only those features that appear to have more widespread support. After all, that is the purpose of having comments on JIRA proposals. It allows for constructive feedback that can help steer a proposal towards a better implementation. Perhaps you should consider Hippo-Award-winner (Hippo Laureate?) Strife Onizuka's comment about this proposal as well. You will see that I am not the only one who has some reservations about what you are proposing on this ticket.

As for the actual substance of your comment, it appears to be nothing more than a string of personal attacks. Furthermore, as a former medical professional, I find your casual, flippant references to mental health issues to be very offensive. Please try to stay on-topic here.

You have used the JIRA as a playground for directing abuse at me.

Your latest attempt to make out I am some kind of anti-linden griefer is pathetic. The lindens participated willingly in the hunt! They all had a lot of fun, including the govoner!

http://www.quantumproducts.org/images/lindens/Govoner.jpg

Please be a bit more polite before you start complaining about something that someone else did. Also, perhaps you ought to consider responding to the substance of comments left by myself, Gordon, Strife, and others regarding this proposal. While the basic concept of visual cues to make it clear who is the Owner and who is the Creator seems to have broad support, there are very serious concerns that have been voiced by a number of people over the idea of removing the Creator's name. Further, a number of residents have questioned why this new feature is such a high priority, given that in most situations the confusion between Owner and Creator is a minor annoyance at best.

You need to address these issues, please, if you want anyone to take this issue seriously. Right now I have serious difficulty imagining this issue being imported as-is. Perhaps if you addressed the substance of the comments as I have mentioned, this proposal might actually get somewhere. But then again, it's your proposal, so that's entirely your choice.

i dont read your posts. I have not read more thant he first few sentances for over a year now. I have learned that your posts are full of abuse, insinuations, half truth, and mis information.

I am unlikly to regard anything you say to be of worth while you continue to do things like violate my copyright with your vile point scoring off topic photos.

That photo had NOTHING to do with the viewer. You are responsible for making this jira unreadable and you have done it deliberatly.

Showstopper
ONLY the most severe, confirmed issues which demand immediate attention from Linden Lab. For example, inability for many Residents to login.

Please leave the priority as I have already marked it.

Nor will it hide the motives of trying to smokescreen the merits of a valid JIRA entry behind a cloud of angry nonsense directed at Darling's products, apparently because they WORK and are selling.

The issue here isn't whether or not anyone likes Darling, or her products, or her manner, or her friggin' shoes, ok?

The issue is about Creators being mis-AR'd instead of Owners when griefing happens, pure and simple.

Drop the nonsense, and deal with that.

I though the priority change was more of the stupid games people have been playing here. I should have checked who did it. (red face)

Markbyron and I have both already pointed out, in some of the early comments on this JIRA proposal, that frivolous ARs are an unlikely outcome. We have both already pointed out that when one right-clicks an object, and selects "Report Abuse" in the pie menu, this brings up an AR form with the object Owner's name filled in already. Similarly, if one were to manually open the Abuse Report window (Help -> Report Abuse), there is a button that one may push, that will allow them to click on an object in-world that is causing abuse, and this will similarly cause the Owner's name to appear on the Abuse Report.

Markbyron went a step further and pointed out that having the wrong owner's name on the Abuse Report will be unlikely to cause this sort of problem, as LL will investigate the incident regardless, and will determine the owner of the object themselves. Mr. Falta also mentioned that he often places Governor Linden as the Abuser for objects where he cannot determine the owner, knowing that Linden Lab will investigate and is perfectly capable of determining the owner of the object themselves from their records.

The original text of this JIRA proposal (which can be viewed by clicking either the "Changes" button or the "All" button at the top of the comments) discussed the fact that the individual submitting this proposal ticket regularly receives angry IMs multiple times a day (4+) from residents who were abused by someone using her product. Ms. Brody posited in this summary that this was because these people mistakenly believed that she was the one abusing them because she was listed as the Creator. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that this is the rationale for this proposal.

Furthermore, there appears to be widespread agreement that certain parts of this proposal, such as moving the Profile buttons and placing the words "Owner" and "Creator" on them, along with other subtle visual cues, may be very helpful to ensure that people are more aware of which name is that of the owner. Where there is resistance, and this is not just from me, if you read up in the comments you will see several other residents expressing their doubts over this, is with the request to remove the Creator's name from the Edit window.

Given that there are already measures in place to prevent misdirected ARs, and given that the other options presented here should make it easier to distinguish between Owner and Creator, it makes very little sense to remove the Creator's name, especially as this has been visible in the Edit window for a very long time. Further, the Creator's name is visible in the Inspect window, and the creator of any items in the Object Inventory are visible if you right-click on them and select properties. Should we remove the Creator names from any of these as well, just to "prevent confusion?"

This portion of the proposal ignores the fact that many (if not almost all) content creators want to be prominently listed as being the creator. It also ignores the fact that there are often legitimate reasons to IM the content creator, such as if there is some sort of malfunction with the product, where it is not working as intended. IMs to the creator of an object help provide useful feedback. Finally, believe it or not, there are in fact situations in which it may be appropriate to AR the creator of an object, in addition to the owner. The SecondLife Terms of Service, the contract that we all signed as a precondition to use SL, states quite clearly that:

• "In addition to abiding at all times by the Community Standards, you agree that you shall not: ...

(iv) take any action or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content as determined by Linden Lab at its sole discretion that is harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, causes tort, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

(v) take any actions or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content that contains any viruses, Trojan horses, worms, spyware, time bombs, cancelbots or other computer programming routines that are intended to damage, detrimentally interfere with, surreptitiously intercept or expropriate any system, data or personal information;

(viii) interfere with or disrupt the Service or servers or networks connected to the Service, or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Service;" *

If a resident uploads content that functions in a certain manner, giving it to someone else to use does not absolve them of responsibility, under the ToS, as to how that content is used. If the content is not intended to be abusive, and is being misused, then yes, that would be the responsibility of the end-user. However, the ToS is quite clear that if content is uploaded that is "intended to damage, detrimentally interfere with..." the SL servers, region simulators, or other resident's clients...for example, content that is intended to force another user to relog, then this is not allowed.

Under this situation, the SL ToS does seem to imply that the Creator of an object might be at fault, and thus it might be perfectly acceptable for people to IM the Creator, or even file an Abuse Report.

"...the fact that many (if not almost all) content creators..."

Where do you pull these "facts" from? Do you have some statistical source that you can quote?

I see more votes and posts in favor of this proposal than i see opposition. That is counting people, not counting how often SOME PEOPLE keep posting the same dubious "facts" over and over again.

***

This JIRA is not about TOS, who to AR or who to IM. This jira IS about clearing up confusion, with one symptom being IM's directed at creaters which were clearly intended for the owner.

When a creater receives and IM saying "can you please stop that" or "can you please move that", it is clear the person sending it wanted to contact the owner of the object. Apposing this JIRA is only hurting people who might have had the problem solved if their IM's were directed at the correct person.

A house, tree, fence or anything else that could encroch on a parcel. If the IM goes to the creater, the objects real owner will not know there is a problem. This could lead to an owner being ARed for somthing that could have been resolved by IM's if they hadn't been sent to the wrong person. Or it can just as easily result in someone who made a house being ARed because someone placed the house over a parcel border. Why would anyone appose anything that helps all 3 people involved in this type of situation from communicating with the right person to solve the problem?

Honestly. Are your motives abour improveing SL for everyone, or are you just trying to "stick it to darling". Like I said many times before, it is well past time you end your vendetta.

Darlign Brody.

Gordon Wendt : "Also since Darling won't do the ethical thing herself and note that she has a conflict of interest here I'll note that Darling makes weapons for a living..."

Ya know 93% of my products do NOT explode. Why cant people see past the 7% that were designed to go boom? ( Yes, I did count the products in my shop and do the maths for that statistic! )

I wonder if Jahar can say that 93% of his products are not weapons. I just wonder because he spends so much time pointing his finger in my direction, just like you do.

@ALL

Most of SL content is made up of unscripted houses, trees, furniture, clothing, skins, hair, shoes, etc. Even if you exclude the wearable items and focus exclusivly on the objects that can be placed in-world, we are still looking at a majority of unscripted harmless non weapon items.

I understand from the Gteam that the number 1 AR complaint involving objects in world is for parcel encrochment.

I have to wonder how many of those AR's from encrochment were sent after the owner didnt respond to an IM, and then how many of those IM's were sent to the creater by mistake.

Darling Brody
It is not always about blowing stuff up!

"Nemesis:

Markbyron and I have both already pointed out, in some of the early comments on this JIRA proposal, that frivolous ARs are an unlikely outcome. We have both already pointed out that..."

Save your smokescreen for people dense enough to be lulled into a coma by sheer weight of verbiage, ok? You used a ton of words to tell me absolutely nothing meaningful. The simple fact is, removing the Creator's name but leaving a Creator button which will STILL GIVE YOU THAT NAME isn't going to hurt anything, and may avoid a lot of problems.

Stop tilting at windmills, Don Quixote.

Looking at your profile it appears you do not make or sell anything. This issue dosnt effect you.

Re: [What job U got or I got in SL ain't the definition of JIRA priority O.o The Edit box showing creator has been around since time began and U getting a wild hair to remove it don't make it a "Major loss or impairment of function, including rarer crashes."]

...maybe if you last long enough in SL you'll figure out that sounding all tuff an' neko-ish is a poor substitute for learning things, being helpful, and understanding that a problem that don't affect YOU can still actually be a problem. Same goes with one you can't wrap your lil' mind around BEING one.

Alexa Linden made this a Major priority - a Linden, mind you - so go troll in the kiddie pool and let the grownups talk business, ok? pats the lil' sprog on the head and sends it home

You can try to make the Owner and Creator fields idiot-proof, but the universe will produce a better idiot.
In fact, if the universe had a JIRA, there would probably be an issue MAKEDBSLIFEHARDER-4009 "Universe needs someone who can maneuver multiple clicks
in Second Life to get angry at the creator of a hamburger."

Immutable laws of the universe aside, you might be able to reduce the number of confused victims.

/me looks towards LeekAlpha, and nods.

It is amazing how some people will spend so much time looking for a "negative angle" and then accuse me of it.

Point 1) is nerfed because LL dont hold the creater responsible for a customer mis-using a product. I had confirmation of this from a GTEAM member a LONG time ago. This is not about protecting creaters from mis-filed AR's. Although it is about making sure bad customers receive the AR intended for them, thus preventing further violations.

Point 2) My creater button will have the same visibility as anyone else.

Please stop trying to manufactor deception where it dosn't exist.

I did not list this JIRA as a bug. It is listed as a feature request. I set the request as major because I feel that correctly routing communications to the right person is very important. I am sure you do too.

Rex my dear friend, I draw my real life income from SL and I spend 16 hour a day working inside the SL platform. I have no interest in dammaging SL or driving away new members with a bad experience from griefers. When someone makes an accusation about my motives, please remember that it is in my best interest for SL to be successful!

*****

Once again I address your 3 points to show they are not hidden or deceptive advantages.

Point 1) is nerfed because LL dont hold the creater responsible for a customer mis-using a product. So there is no extra protection from being banned for creaters.

Point 2) My creater button will have the same visibility as anyone else, so there is no advantage in marketing.

Point 3) The lindens do not ask people to stop selling a product they consider dammaging to the grid, they place an object ban on it. And they dont ban the entire product, they ban the specific prim that is rezzed from the product.
EXAMPLE: back in havok1 I gave someone a full permissions copy of my blitz orbitor prim. It was passed around until somone used it to make a region crasher. LL banned the prim. My orbitor would still rez the cage around the avatar, but the bullet (blitz prim) would fail to rez.

In your point 3 you said "Is this what you are trying to avoid?". A question directed at me which seems to imply a deception on my part. I am sure this was not your intention to accuse me of deception, and you will be more carefull next time.

*****

If you read my posts around the JIRA you will quickly learn that I say what I think and I dont hide my intentions. If I wanted to be deceptive I would post stuff like this from and alt. I am honest and straight forward about what I think without feeling the need to hide my intentions or identity. ....That goes for technical issues, and interpersonal issues too.

I know that I have a strong personality, but I have changed my mind many times when people have pointed out a better technical way to resolve a problem. Of course if the better idea gets lost in personal comments it will be a shame.

*****

When I post to a JIRA I will often look at things from a teleporter point of view. I do this because I make dozens of different teleporters and have a good understanding of them. I also chose teleporters because they are in wide use over the grid and they don't attract the same anomosity that talking about guns and bullets do.

There is nothing more unhelpfull that someone who is anti-guns apposing a jira because the poster used a gun as an example for a bug.

I mention this in closing because some people go out of they way to point out that a percentage of my products are wepons. As the Linden programmers know me and my products very well, I can only conclude that people posting about weapons are trying to disrupt the jira.

Some very cool features have been nerfed by non-financial members of the SL community who have closed and/or spammed JIRAs. I hope people reading this will consider how much cool content is lost everytime the "games" start up in a jira. Content that can never be created because of a faulty or missing LSL function.

Even though the lindens don't hold a creator responsible for what customers do with what they purchased from the creator, the lindens can ban a creation if is detrimental to their business, maybe the lindens can do a lot more depending on bad the creation is. You see darling, I asked the question "Is this what you are trying to avoid?" because I wasn't sure if you were trying to do that, and I was leaning more towards you not trying to avoid such a thing I am glad you clarified it.

So, could I possibly convince you to close this jira and open a new one?
If the new jira were to request the following, is very likely that you would have my vote for it
1. change "Creator" to "Creator/Maker"
2. the "Creator/Maker" and "Owner" buttons should have different font colors and different background color.
2. have a tooltip that gives a better description when the mouse hovers over these two buttons.

p.s.
The best way might be if the creator would be given the option of whether or not to have his/hers name visible in the build window. So if the creator decides for visibility, the build window will be the way it is right now, else the build window will be the way you like it darling. Sadly, this might require the most amount of work, therefore making it less likely to be implemented

One simple GOAL. Ensure people who want the creater get the creater, and those who want the owner get the owner, and they understand the difference.

*******************************************************************************************
More on motives

"and it also seems that you do want to receive less IMs(or ARs),"

I would like to receive IM's from people who want to talk to me, rather than IM's intended for the owner of the object.
When someone contants me instead of the owner, I can't help them because I cant alter other people's objects!

Most of the time I am AFK, so the person's IM goes unanswered for hours! This is frustrating for the person who sent the IM, brings me needlessly closer to an IM cap, and leaves the owner at risk of retaliation should the offending object be ARed via the PIE menu!

All up, 3 unhappy people because the original IM when to the wrong person. Dosnt matter if it was my HUGE space city build hanging over a parcel or a weapon blowing up their pet cat, if the communication goes to the wrong person then it might as well not have been sent.

AR has zero effect on creaters when their products are TOS compliant when used on willing participants. As one Gtream member said to me a couple of years ago "The creaters name is usless to us because just about everyone in SL has given out a full permissions object at some point, which means everyone is at risk of having their name on somthing that gets ARed."

I would imagen there is an exception to the "ignore creater" rule when someone activly markets a region crasher. Mind you my blitz prim was turned into a region crasher and I didnt get into trouble for being the creater of the prim used! They just banned the offending prim. So lets stop rabbiting on about ARs being a motive. It is a non-event and only serves to distract people from the real benifits of making it more clear what and who a creater VS Owner is.

************************
solving the JIRA

My screen shot is an example I slapped together to show how the Creater and Owner buttons should have the words Creater and Owner on them instead of having creater and owner .........................................................................way over the other side......................................of the page. It dosnt take much for your eyes to skip a line when they are so similar looking, and click the wrong PROFILE button.

I do not agree that having a button labled "Creater's Profile" without showing the creater's name will hurt anyone's sales. In order to find the creater's shop they MUST press the button to open the profile anyway. If they are too lazy to open the profile to see the creaters name, they are not going to search your profile to find the shop, teleport to the shop, and buy the product!

You might like to consider the reverse situation when someone wants to buy somthing and accedently opens the owners profile, finds no shop listed, and gives up. One sale lost !

I do agree that the word "Creater" is a poor choice and that Maker might be better. As I said before SL uses the term REZ to distingush the difference between creating a copy and an original. Yet I have met people who are 6 month old and still dont understand, and that is not counting the non-english speaking people. These people think "Creater" is the person who created the on the ground next to them, rather than the Owner being the one who rezed a copy of the prim someone else created. ARGH! that is complicated when you say it in full! No wonder they get confused!

"Profile of Maker" as the text printed on the profile button might be better than the work "Creater" i have used in the screen shot.

I do not object to colour coding them, but I dont think there is an international owner colour, or an international creater colour. So I'm not sure how this will help unless the creater details are in a grey and the owner in a white to make the owner's name POP more. I am assuming you are talking about colour coding the names instead of removing the creaters name which is my profered option.

I agree that the tool tip should tell you the difference between creater (maker) and owner, however one must consider that tool tips are slow to appear and probably will not show up before someone clicks the wrong profile button. Tool Tips are little snippets of extra help for when you know you need it. The key is you need to know you need extra help so you can hover the mouse over the tool tip hotspot. I dont see this happening when someone is in a hurry to contact the owner of a product, but it will help with long term education.

I do not agree that their should be an option saved in an item to tell the viewer how to display the edit dialog box. There are much better uses for the memory space.

I see no reason to close this jira when Alexa Linden has set the JIRA to Major status. Obviously the Lindens agree there is a need to make the information more clear, therwise Alexa would have closed it.

Darling Brody

Vending machines.

How many creaters of vending machines are receiving complaints from customers about failed deliveries that should be going to the vending machine owner?

Take hippo for example who make vending machines for 3rd parties:-

• One creater makes the machine,
• another creater makes the stock,
• an owner places the machine in a shop,
• and a customer buys.

If the customer has a problem they will either IM the owner correctly, or mistakenly IM the vending machine creater, who in the case of hippo will probably have their IM's capped and never respond.

The problem is with the viewer having a confusing interface that can be improved.

If nothing else the PROFILE buttons could include the words Owner and Creater/Maker so you know exactly which profile button you are pressing without having to look to the far end of the dialog box so see which profile it is for.

The current owner/creater layout promotes confusion and requires people to know ther difference between owner and creater while being carefull to select the correct one.

There is room for improvment.

You may consider yourself smart enough to operate it without making a mistake, but I dont care about you, i care about helping the noobies who are making the mistakes!