✨ Feature Requests

SL has changed over the years. Casual interaction used to be the default, but now it’s the exception, and most people hesitate to reach out unless they’re sure it’s welcome. Established residents usually have their friend groups, but newer people often struggle to fit in or know who’s open to chat. Many residents are looking for simple, low‑key interaction, but SL mainly gives us tools to signal that we’re busy, like autorespond, unavailable, mute, and away. There’s no equivalent way to show that we’re open to interact. It would be helpful if SL had a simple visual indicator to show when someone is open to chat. Maybe something in the profile, preferences, or even a small marker above the avatar that residents can turn on when they’re in the mood to interact. A clear, universal signal like this could make everyday socializing feel less awkward and a lot more natural. Thanks!

Additional abilities to color text, or italicize, Bold, or change fonts, for those of us that role play. I adore SL, but the lack of consideration for text compared to any other platform is appalling.

Many people at the forums (and in world) would love to be able to outright block. When an ignored avatar (in world and in the forums) is blocked, they can still interact in unfavorable ways. Trolls should be limited, but the only thing limited is my ability to protect my privacy.

Considering the number of SL-related communities on Discord and the big DIscord exodus right now thanks to the age verification/ID-leak issue with Discord it would be nice if LL offered an alternative, e.g. by setting up a Matrix home server (e.g. tuwunel https://matrix-construct.github.io/tuwunel/ ) where SL communities wishing to move off Discord can find a new home and where SL users can communicate when not logged into SL itself. If LL could provide a Matrix Space for Second Life even communities wishing to be hosted on other home servers could be listed there, providing a central place for SL users using Matrix to find SL-related communities on Matrix.

Hi! I run a medium sized Community in Second Life. Over the years, my community, like many others moved from using the Group Chat features in Second Life to discord due to the need for the ability to have persistent discussions that happen over the long term. However, I feel that this has had the side effect of giving my community less of a reason to log into Second Life. After all, all of the community discussions happen outside of Second Life now in discord instead. I believe that if we had a persistent group chat, many users will log into Second Life, simply to see what messages they missed in the group chats whilst they were away, which will ultimately lead to more activity. Communities like mine would be able to transition back to using Second Life as our primary communication venue, which will be good for Second Life's long-term health as more people will be engaging with the platform and helping it to grow, and in turn help financially justify other much-needed improvements to the group chat system.

Since developers can no longer offer custom creation services to Second Life residents through the SL forums or the official SL Discord server, I strongly suggest implementing a paid developer advertisement system, similar to Marketplace ads, with a fixed duration—or alternatively, a review-based listing system, as used in Roblox developer Discord servers. This approach would address several unresolved issues: Should Second Life users be limited to purchasing whatever is available on the Marketplace, or should they have a clear, supported option to commission customized work? Is it more effective to allow hundreds or thousands of scattered threads requesting custom creation, or to centralize offerings through a smaller number of developer listings? Is it better for users to blindly cast a net—risking scams or poor-quality work—or to choose developers based on demonstrated portfolios and verified reviews from LL list ? Should developers who aim to enhance the Second Life experience be forced to individually explain workflows and requirements through private IMs, or should this information be publicly accessible in a centralized, transparent location? For a well-established platform like Second Life, should users and developers be left exposed to high-commission, third-party websites, effectively treated as prey rather than protected participants in the ecosystem? A structured paid or review-based advertising system would reduce spam, improve user safety, and provide consistency and accountability for both users and developers.

the webserver in SLS is missing some important abilities that are part of the http standard. I understand that there is a proxy server between my LSL webserver and the external internet, and therefore some restrictions must apply. But the omissions I have fallen over recently are not onerous for proxy server. For example basic realm authorisation setting cookies returning a redirect status These 3 require being able to set stock standard HTTP headers in the generated response , as is done by llSetContentType for the CONTENT_TYPE header. I'd also like to be able to do chunked responses. I accept that's a bit more ambitious So my request boils down to Please provide a function llSetHeader for at good subset of the standard HTTP headers. It should function with the same constraints as llSetContentType does.

Currently Traffic Generation for sims is broken and a misrepresentation of activity. To improve upon this, there is the following proposal: An invisible timer that counts down since the last non-scripted action (Talking, moving, clicking, etc.) after 10-20 minutes of inactivity the avatar will stop generating traffic until an action is performed to reset the timer once more. Promoting active communities and social activities and draw individuals closer together. An additional counter next to traffic in the search function showing how many avatars are on-sim at the moment. This allows individuals to look for active sims that work within a resident's timezone. Traffic generation this way should have the intention to draw the social and active parts of second life closer together and reward active social spaces more. Traffic should be an indication of social hotspots and active places within second life. Feedback is appreciated and I'm hoping to open a discussion on this topic.

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

Currently if someone types [SOME_UNSAFE_URL SOME_SAFE_URL] into an IM they can convince a person to click a malicious link that looks entirely safe visually. I propose a way to correct this: A new Preferences -> Chat -> Chat Windows checkbox called Enable URL Filtering. When unchecked it disables the Allowed URLs button. A new Preferences -> Chat -> Chat Windows button called Allowed URLs. When this button is clicked a filter list similar to the Firestorm Media Filter list pops up allowing the user to add or remove allowed domains. By default the following domains should be allowed: secondlife.com firestormviewer.org phoenixviewer.com discord.gg discord.com youtube.com youtu.be This way users can perform basic operations like connecting to friends on Discord, visiting support help links on firestorm or secondlife's website, visiting the marketplace, and viewing youtube links. Beyond that if someone needs to visit additional domains, they need to add them to the allowed filter list. Then if someone were to attempt to hit them with a malicious link, it wouldn't work by default. I think this would be a quick and efficient way to fix the problem for the most users. I understand this would make things more difficult for any url not on the list, but people could just display those urls as plaintext and users could copy and paste them if they truly want to visit them. And, in this way, they wouldn't be concealed by a malicious clickable link. And, any links added to the filtering allow list would become clickable if desired. A checkbox which is on by default, could be provided for unchecking to turn off the security feature. But, it should be on default for all users, unless the user chose not to use it. With a warning that pops up when attempting to uncheck explaining why that might not be a great idea that they could then ignore and even "don't show me this warning again."