[sldev] How Far For Security?

[Argent Stonecutter]

On 2008-06-09, at 19:18, Brandon Lockaby wrote:
> a.  Go ahead and be like the web where people know they have to  
> protect their own assets

The failure of so many web ventures, and the "dot bomb", suggests  
that the internet is not automatically the best model to follow.

People do better work when they get rewarded. People are not capable  
of "protecting their own assets".

The corollary of (a) is "eliminate a huge portion of the SL economy,  
and possibly go out of business".

> b.  Make people think it's LL's job to protect their assets, and  
> make them angry at you when it turns out it doesn't work the way  
> they thought?

The corollary of (b) is "you always have angry customers, you have to  
learn to deal with them and where possible prevent the problems that  
they're angry about... it's part of the cost of staying in business."

I've taken the opposite side of many of LL's decisions, and I still  
think they made a mistake removing large portions of the simulated  
economy in SL... it's caused a lot of problems, and led to a lot of  
bad behavior. I also don't approve of some changes in the fine  
details of the rights system, like enabling the creation of objects  
that can neither be copied or transferred. But I certainly can't  
complain about them being cautious about making changes that might  
remove the rest of the economic simulation by making everything too  
obviously free.

Can you see a way to retain the Linden economy without people buying  
things in SL?