Re: [ogpx] Tourist use case

[Lawson English <[e-mail]>]

Vaughn Deluca wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Lawson English <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Meadhbh Hamrick wrote:
>
>         but didn't we say that we were going to focus on "second
>         life-like"
>         worlds in this WG? isn't that why it was formed? shouldn't the
>         tourist
>         model be an effort of the MMOX group? i thought that was the
>         reason we
>         kept the MMOX mailing list up, so work could continue on that
>         type of
>         virtual world.
>
>         -meadhbh/infinity
>          
>
>
>     It seems to me that the MOST touristy mode we will ever see is the
>     free-for-all from the original OGP test where
>     simple TP and naught else was supported.
>
>
> I find that a deeply depressing thought.  I would *really* hope that 
> at least  transfer of free to copy assets will also be possible. 
>
>

Well, me too. I was merely pointing out that "tourism" was built into 
the system from the start, so to suggest that tourism was MMOX
rather than VRAM was a false dichotomy. We already have an example of 
the "most touristy" mode possible and things will be built
*on top of* it. The idea that few vendors would support it misses the 
fact that it is the _de facto_ model that everything else is built on.

Now, tourism with non-SL-compatible worlds is certainly an MMOX issue, 
but tourism is inherent in ANY interop scenario, period.

It's just the state of NULL trust. Whether NULL trust is allowed is a 
policy issue, but its inherent in the nature of the system.


Lawson