✨ Feature Requests

  • Search existing ideas before submitting- Use support.secondlife.com for customer support issues- Keep posts on-topicThank you for your ideas!
Separate Offline Message Limits for Instant Messages and Group Notices
Currently, there is a single cap that applies to both private instant messages and group notices received while offline. This can create a significant problem for users who belong to many groups, especially when those groups send a large number of notices. Because both types of messages count toward the same limit, group notices can quickly fill the offline message queue. When we log back in, we may receive a large number of group notices until the delivery limit is reached, with no way of knowing whether important private instant messages were prevented from being delivered. In some cases, we don't find out that someone sent us an offline message until hours later, when that person asks why we never responded. I'd like to propose separate offline delivery limits for private instant messages and group notices. For example, as a Premium Plus member, my current limit is 240 messages total. Because I receive a lot of group notices, I frequently hit that limit while offline. I've had people become upset with me for not responding to messages that I never actually received because the cap had already been reached. Under this proposal, instead of having a single limit of 240 messages for everything, Premium Plus members could receive up to 240 offline instant messages and up to 240 offline group notices separately. Users on other membership tiers could retain their existing limits, but those limits would also be separated between instant messages and group notices. Separating these limits would greatly reduce the chances of important personal messages being lost simply because a user's offline queue was filled with group notices.
3
·
Communication
·
tracked
The End To Phishing Spam Links
As has been noted over and over again, the increase in phishing spam links is or has gotten out of control. In the following, I propose a practical way in which to address this issue which would seriously curb the issue if not altogether get rid of such an activity. Create new role abilities. New abilities would have defined rules for group owner, group moderator(s) or other trusted individuals to be the only allowed individuals to post links in a group. Sub-classification for members who don't fit the aforementioned roles to be allowed only to post image links from known/well established image sharing sites. (This too should have a on/off toggle to prevent any type of abuse as needed) Group owners/moderators can have/create an allowed list of URL's that are permitted in their group. Example: Marketplace.secondlife.com Defining permitted URLs allows only those that are an exact match and prevents misspelled and misleading links. In the event a user attempts to post outside of their role abilities, the post is blocked from being sent and user notified as to why. In the above proposed solution, spammers would not by default be allowed to post spam links in any group as the default persons of the established "everyone" role would not allow it nor any other default role as defined by the group administration. In consideration of what to do with groups whose administration has been absent for a period of 6 months or more, by default all link postings should be disabled until such a time (if ever) a group owner logs in and establishes who may post links. While some may see this as an unpopular option, it prevents those groups that some still use from being exploited. I propose this solution as if there is no ability to post phishing links, then there is less likelihood that users are entering in their credentials and their accounts being compromised as well as serving the great community good of people who just don't want to see this mess as there are other means of advertising for those who are interested. Regards, DJ Vicious
20
·
Communication
·
tracked
Load More