Why No-Mod?

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

entity0x wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

entity0x wrote:

 

Of course, the caveat is that these could be psychological weaknesses in myself, but I hoped to clarify why some creators may not like to do this - valid reasons or not.

 

---

A brief, flickering flame of self-awareness, long since blown out. Sad.

---

Yes, self-assessment and the ability to realize one might be wrong about a position, and to consider alternate views (as I have in this discussion) should be frowned upon.

I guess you ran out of valid arguments.

 

---

I have plenty more arguments, including the one immediately before this post, which you ignored.

My point in this post was that you say you're considering other points of views, but your opinion doesn't change, and observers say you aren't. If you actually are analyzing your own arguments please tell us how you're going about this.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

entity0x wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

I'm generally more of a consumer than a creator, at least of individual objects. If I buy something that is more than a commodity item it generally means that I've determined that the creator is good enough that I will keep what they've done looking pretty much how they've made it.

However, there may be times when I want the ability to make invisible changes to an object, especially when Second Life has added features that weren't around when the item was made.

---

Yes, I understand, but maybe if it's not on the menu, it simply isn't for dinner.

(

impersonal

)

Don't go to a pizza parlour and demand they make you wonton soup and egg rolls. Don't get mad at them if they don't want to make wonton soup and egg rolls. Don't try to 'name and shame' them for not doing so. Don't call them 'anti-consumerist' or any other number of labels because they don't want to do so.

 

---

---

That's not what I'd be asking for and you know it. It would be much closer to going into a pizza parlour and asking them not to put pepperoni on a pizza because you're desperately allergic to pork (like a RL friend of mine is.) If a pizza parlour didn't want to do a request like this I'd sure as Hell make sure everybody knew about it.

ETA - Of course, for mod/no mod that's far too dramatic. It would be closer to a customer wanting to take the pizza home and dip the crust in barbecue sauce. If the pizza parlour was so concerned about this "insult to their creative vision" that they shrink-wrapped their pizzas so no foreign contaminant got on them...

---

Since you seem to have lost track, here's my argument again.

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

Great pizza analogy but, as a counterpoint, what if instead of barbecue sauce they decide to smear it with rancid fish paste and paint thinners, then they put it back in the box and share it with a group of friends.  Unless that person specifically tells their friends that they've "customized" the pizza, don't you think that everyone who tasted it would take one look at the box and make a mental note never to buy a pizza from that shop as long as they lived?

As to the question "Why No-Mod?" the answer is pretty simple.... "Because Free Will!"  You can try to educate people on the pros and cons of Mod vs No Mod (in fact I think doing so is a great idea, personally I much prefer stuff to be modifiable and there are a lot of misconceptions about the amount of protection No-Mod actually provides), but if, after informing a person of the facts, it becomes clear that they have made up their mind to disagree with you on the subject then any further attempts to "educate" them is going to seem (at least to them) more like an attempt to pressure them into doing what you want them to do regardless of their own wishes, and your "lessons" will eventually devolve into pointless debates which are more to do with ego vs self-entitlement than Mod vs No-Mod.

I have the utmost respect for Penny and her opinions, she's an extremely knowledgable and talented individual and, for the most part, I agree with everything she said in her OP, but the simple truth is creators are under no obligation to give customers what they want and, simlarly, customers are under no obligation to pay for items that don't meet their requirements, no matter how reasonable or ludicrous their points of view may seem to each other.  I'm not entirely sure how her statement of "I want to encourage you to support those content creators who do release moddable rigged/fitmesh content" got twisted into the concept of a boycott on creators that don't offer modifiable content but I'm fairly certain that wasn't her intent and it clearly isn't lending anything constructive to the debate on Mod vs No-Mod content!

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Fluffy Sharkfin wrote:

Great pizza analogy but, as a counterpoint, what if instead of barbecue sauce they decide to smear it with rancid fish paste and paint thinners, then they put it back in the box and share it with a group of friends.  Unless that person specifically tells their friends that they've "customized" the pizza, don't you think that everyone who tasted it would take one look at the box and make a mental note

never

to buy a pizza from that shop as long as they lived?

---

In order for that to a valid point, you'd need to show:

1) That someone would actually do that

and

2) That someone else would assume it was because of what the store on the box did.

Making something no-modify based on that possibility would be taking utility from everyone on the off chance somebody might do something ridiculous and you'd get the blame. I've pointed out before in this thread that things are made no-mod basically out of fear, and in some cases that fear would be justified. For this case, I'm dubious to say the least.

I've bought many things because they've looked cool in-world and seen who made them. However, I can't remember the last time I've inspected something because it looked bad and judged the creator based on that. And I can confidently say I've never looked up the creator of a single thing that was in someone's trash folder because the creator made part of it full-bright for no good reason and it was no-mod so the irritated owner chucked it.

I'm not saying that creators don't have the right to put any permissions they want on what they sell. However, there are creators here who both want that right and the "right" to not be called "anti-consumer" due to their choices. I just don't see how limiting everyone who buys your product only because of a barely existent chance of damage to ones reputation wouldn't be called "anti-consumer."

 

 

 

 

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

In order for that to a valid point, you'd need to show:

1) That someone would actually

do

that

and

2) That someone else would assume it was because of what the

store on the box

did.

 

---

And in order for it to be invalid you'd need to show:

1) That someone wouldn't actually do that

and

2) That someone else wouldn't assume it was because of what the store on the box did.

Asking for proof of what other people may or may not decide to do or think is kind of pointless, neither of us can say with 100% certainty what someone else may choose to do.

 

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

I've bought many things because they've looked cool in-world and seen who made them. However,

I can't remember the last time I've inspected something because it looked

bad

and judged the

creator

based on that.

---

 I'd imagine that most people don't bother to inspect things that look bad, that's kind of the point I was trying to make with my whole rancid fish oil and paint thinners pizza analogy

 

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

 I'm not saying that creators don't have the right to put any permissions they want on what they sell. However, there are creators here who both want that right

and

the "right" to not be called "anti-consumer" due to their choices. I just don't see how limiting everyone who buys your product

only

because of a barely existent chance of damage to ones reputation wouldn't be called "anti-consumer."

---

Honestly, I don't think it's fair to label anyone as "anti-consumer" just because they don't provide things that meet your specific personal requirements.  There are plenty of consumers that are happy to buy no-mod content, you may not agree with their decision but that doesn't mean you can ignore their existence and claim that you speak for all consumers when you're really talking about your own personal preferences!   Berating others for not agreeing with your point of view isn't going to resolve any conflicts of opinion, it will only escalate them.

 

As I said I'm in favour of mod content, but I'm also in favour of people being free to make their own decisions without being called names by those who disagree with them.  Nobody has ever been maimed or killed by no-mod content (not so sure about rancid fishpaste and paint thinners pizza, that's more of a grey area ), so what's the harm in letting people make their own decisions?

[Pamela Galli]

My thoughts exactly.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Fluffy Sharkfin wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

I've bought many things because they've looked cool in-world and seen who made them. However,

I can't remember the last time I've inspected something because it looked

bad

and judged the

creator

based on that.

---

 I'd imagine that most people don't bother to inspect things that look bad, that's kind of the point I was trying to make with my whole rancid fish oil and paint thinners pizza analogy

---

---

But in Second Life you can't see who made something unless you inspect it, can you? In other words, the opposite of your point.

 

---

Fluffy Sharkfin wrote:

---

As I said I'm in favour of mod content, but I'm also in favour of people being free to make their own decisions without being called names by those who disagree with them.  Nobody has ever been maimed or killed by no-mod content (not so sure about rancid fishpaste and paint thinners pizza, that's more of a grey area

), so what's the harm in letting people make their own decisions?

---

Nothing wrong with letting people make their own decisions. In fact, people should own their own decisions. So, if you made a decision and it's a solid one why should you worry about what people say about it?

I'm not berating anyone, just using simple logic.

Is making something no-mod pro-consumer? One point that was made in another thread is that consumers aren't asking for no-mod content. Just because they buy it doesn't mean they're buying it because it's no-mod. There are certain things (like some rare gacha items) that require no-mod status to be valuable, but that's already been argued as a special case. For the vast majority of items being no-mod isn't an advantage for the consumer.

Is it consumer neutral? Something that's no-mod has fewer options for the user than something otherwise identical that allows modification, so it's not neutral.

If making something no-mod isn't pro-consumer and it's not consumer-neutral that leaves anti-consumer.

That doesn't mean that it can't be justified, you just can't say that it isn't anti-consumer.

[Codex Alpha]

LOL, this forum is like a bad game of 'telephone', as it seems people just respond before reading something correctly, use a bad analogy and it just breaks down...

The original statement was; Don't go to a pizza parlour and demand they make you wonton soup and egg rolls. Don't get mad at them if they don't want to make wonton soup and egg rolls. Don't try to 'name and shame' them for not doing so. Don't call them 'anti-consumerist' or any other number of labels because they don't want to do so.

Slapping barbeque sauce on a pizza is a mod analogy now? How did we get from "I want a blue box, but you're selling red" to "I want wonton soup and egg rolls, but you only sell pizza", and those that seem to be demanding their cake and eat it to..

to this weird analogy about being 'allergic to pork' and slapping barbeque sauce or 'rancid fish and paint thinners' as being equivalent to mod permissions?

In other words, as stated before, "Maybe if it's not on the menu, it's not for dinner", means just go shop elsewhere; find what you want to buy, don't try to force or shame creators into doing anything.

 

---

Fluffy Sharkfin wrote:

I'm not entirely sure how her statement of "

I want to encourage you to support those content creators who do release moddable rigged/fitmesh content

" got twisted into the concept of a boycott on creators that don't offer modifiable content but I'm fairly certain that wasn't her intent and it clearly isn't lending anything constructive to the debate on Mod vs No-Mod content!

---

Thats because her original sentiment on the topic was posted on her personal blog, and after the discussion in this topic, she has gone back to edit it and use a more positive tone instead. If you read the discussion from the very beginning, you would have seen this, and every other label and accusation slapped on merchants who don't conduct business as a group thinks they should.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

entity0x wrote:

LOL, this forum is like a bad game of 'telephone', as it seems people just respond before reading something correctly, use a bad analogy and it just breaks down...

The original statement was;

Don't go to a pizza parlour and demand they make you wonton soup and egg rolls.

Don't get mad at them if they don't want to make wonton soup and egg rolls. Don't try to 'name and shame' them for not doing so. Don't call them 'anti-consumerist' or any other number of labels because they don't want to do so.

Slapping barbeque sauce on a pizza is a mod analogy now? How did we get from "I want a blue box, but you're selling red" to "I want wonton soup and egg rolls, but you only sell pizza", and those that seem to be demanding their cake and eat it to..

to this weird analogy about being 'allergic to pork' and slapping barbeque sauce or 'rancid fish and paint thinners' as being equivalent to mod permissions?

---

Modifying something is taking an existing thing and changing it. Your analogy, which was ordering wonton soup and egg rolls at a pizza parlour, was a non-starter for modify perms because you can't change a pizza into Chinese food. Since you decided to use the pizza analogy I pulled it out of the trash can where it lay dying and changed it into something usable. In other words, I modified it.

You're welcome!

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

---

entity0x wrote:

LOL, this forum is like a bad game of 'telephone', as it seems people just respond before reading something correctly, use a bad analogy and it just breaks down...

....

In other words, as stated before, "Maybe if it's not on the menu, it's not for dinner", means just go shop elsewhere; find what you want to buy, don't try to force or shame creators into doing anything.

---

But yet you think it's ok for you to try to force and shame others into doing things like changing their off-site blog posts?

That's what you've been doing here, whether you see it or not. Likewise with your charge of responding before reading something correctly. You're the one most likely to.

Penny's threads and personal blog posts are aimed at helping people understand how they can get more out of SL and make more informed choices in what they buy and create. Surely these are good things, people making purchases which meet their needs and content creators at least being aware of those needs. She has acknowledged plenty of times there are instances when no-mod is appropriate. Others have too. I pointed out that the less no-mod there is on the grid, the more unique and special your no-mod projects will be. If that is indeed a valuable selling point for your work, you will only gain by an overall reduction in no-mod items. Don't you want that? I suspect you didn't even take in what I was saying.

The term "anti-consumerist" is in this thread ONLY because you brought it here. It's not in Penny's unedited OP. If you want an evidenced and supported statement, go back and look. She was really quite polite in the questions she asked of creators and using words like "I want to encourage you". She is entitled to her opinion and to express it politely here and as strongly as she wishes on her personal blog. If it upsets you to read her blog and forum posts, you are entitled to ignore them. It's really quite similar to what you are repeating about shopping elsewhere.

 

 

[Codex Alpha]

---

Bitsy Buccaneer wrote:

But yet you think it's ok for you to try to force and shame others into doing things like changing their off-site blog posts?That's what you've been doing here, whether you see it or not.

---

All I remember is addressing a group of forum members who wanted to 'force' and 'shame' SL content creators into putting copy and mod permissions on all their products. I offered counter-arguments to such opinions.

Their discussion on this matter spans several SL-related blogs and forums, including this one. How did they propose to 'force' and 'shame' creators to do so?

It was suggested on a related blog(s) and forum(s) that SL Content creators who did not include copy/mod permissions on all of their products;

1) were 'anti-consumerist' and 'conducting bad business practice'. This could be considered by some as 'anti-competitive' behaviour, as it relies on bashing competitors and putting one's own business above another.

2) that SL consumers should refuse to buy products from creators who do not include copy/mod permissions on their products. The word 'boycott' was even used, which is defined and understood as 'a call or rally to stop buying or using the goods or services of a certain company as a protest action.'

3) should be put on a 'name and shame list' in order to 'force' and 'shame' them into changing their marketing practices.

4) are 'prideful', 'egotistical', 'insecure', 'inexperienced', 'fearful', 'paranoid', 'selfish', 'uneducated on issues', 'disrespect their customers', etc

5) would lose business because of it

6) should change their mesh workflow to accommodate end use in SL

---

Bitsy Buccaneer wrote:

The term "anti-consumerist" is in this thread ONLY because you brought it here.

---

Is it any wonder I would suggest that these 'call to actions' could be considered 'anti-competitive'?

Anti-Competitive

'An anti-competitive practice is defined as any practice that has, is intended to have, or is likely to have, the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition' - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anticompetitive

'Actions that marginalize, belittle, or defame individuals or groups inhibit the satisfying exchange of ideas and diminish the Second Life community as a whole' - https://secondlife.com/corporate/cs.php

As a result, a related blog post changed their wording to reflect a more positive call-to-action, and removed any labels previously assigned to SL Content creators who did not market their products as the blogger wished them to. If this statement changed because of the discussion we've had on this forum, then that is a natural and organic result of seeing differing points of view - what a forum is for and about.

So... who or what group is the one attempting to 'force' or 'shame' who again?

I am all for choice, for both the average SL user and for SL Content Creators. I believe the free market will decide, and that both parties are free to do as they see fit.

It was the attitude by some parties around this issue that I mainly addressed, as some of the opinions (listed above) certainly influenced the position of each poster on the matter.

In the meantime, for those who want full copy and mod permissions, there are over 25,000 items available in the Building & Object Components section to serve both parties wishes. They offer optimized texture layouts and kits, and blank meshes they can work with to their hearts content.

The market this group demands is already provided, they're just shopping in the wrong place.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

entity0x wrote:

---

As a result, a related blog post changed their wording to reflect a more positive call-to-action

, and removed any labels previously assigned to SL Content creators who did not market their products as the blogger wished them to. If this statement changed because of the discussion we've had on this forum, then that is a natural and organic result of seeing differing points of view - what a forum is for and about.

---

I don't think this actually happened. Penny used the words you're objecting to in a post from September and they're still there. She wrote a separate, somewhat related post in December. I doubt that one ever contained the words you're objecting to.

[Codex Alpha]

Ok, so let's add 'you're a liar' to the all the previous accusations in this thread. Always attacking the person, and not addressing counter points being made.

It's okay, I'll just up my game and start taking screenshots from now on.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

entity0x wrote:

Ok, so let's add 'you're a liar' to the all the previous accusations in this thread. Always attacking the person, and not addressing counter points being made.

It's okay, I'll just up my game and start taking screenshots from now on.

---

I'm not saying you're a liar, just mistaken.

[Pixieplumb Flanagan]

Screenshots? Oh, in case people edit their posts after other people reply?  For evidence in a forthcoming trial?

Happy new year!

[tabletopfreak Toocool]

no mod?no sale.. we have over 1150000 mesh apparel items and of those less than 150k are mod, what a sad state sl finds itself in when the very reason to play the game (total viral freedom) is being counteracted buy people posting no mod items .. EVEN IF i like a no mod item i won't buy it, i refuse to put any more lin in that egotistical "designers"  pocket .. like in rl in sl consumers don't stand up for themselves, they feel powerless and just bend over for the sellers.. well most people, not me and a few others .. but just imagine .. what if we all stood up together? there was never anyone about to buy an item and seen its mod, then they go.. "oh nvm i hate mod rights, since the item is mod i won't buy it" .. what would happen if we all stopped buying no mod items?? 2 weeks top the fight would be over and mod rights would be added to every active sellers items i promise you this as they freak out any week things slow down (dont be a child, no one is talking about scripts or demos, animations ect) gotcha items ar a whole other issue..(but i don't care about the gatcha MESS) 

[Janet Voxel]

I recently got into modding, I know this topic is old. While I can definitely see the benefits of modding things and the reasons for making things non-mod are kind of ridiculous; there are a couple of things that need to be considered.

1) you have to keep in mind the average SL user. The average SL user can’t make a shape or figure out how a hud with more than three buttons work. This really isn’t an insult; the point is most people want things as easy to use as possible. It’s just human nature.

2) There are steps creators can do that would make the mod community a little happier. One is  also sell mod versions of things, but charge a little more for them. The second is to set up something where a group of mod minded creators get together and establish some kind of store or cooperative that sells items that compete with no modders and undercuts them.

That’s really the only way you’d see a change take place.

[Parhelion Palou]

2 hours ago, tabletopfreak Toocool said:

no mod?no sale.. we have over 1150000 mesh apparel items and of those less than 150k are mod, what a sad state sl finds itself in when the very reason to play the game (total viral freedom) is being counteracted buy people posting no mod items .. EVEN IF i like a no mod item i won't buy it, i refuse to put any more lin in that egotistical "designers"  pocket .. like in rl in sl consumers don't stand up for themselves, they feel powerless and just bend over for the sellers.. well most people, not me and a few others .. but just imagine .. what if we all stood up together? there was never anyone about to buy an item and seen its mod, then they go.. "oh nvm i hate mod rights, since the item is mod i won't buy it" .. what would happen if we all stopped buying no mod items?? 2 weeks top the fight would be over and mod rights would be added to every active sellers items i promise you this as they freak out any week things slow down (dont be a child, no one is talking about scripts or demos, animations ect) gotcha items ar a whole other issue..(but i don't care about the gatcha MESS) 

Guess what? The people who create those things have the freedom to make them no-mod. You have the freedom to create your own apparel. You can also refuse to buy no-mod items.

There's no such thing as a mass boycott in SL because there's no such thing as mass media. Even if all the people who read the forum went along with it, that's only a few percent of SL's population.

BTW, congratulations on resurrecting a thread that's only been dead a year.

[Rhonda Huntress]

2 hours ago, tabletopfreak Toocool said:

what if we all stood up together?

What if we all didn't give a flying fart in hell and didn't buy things we had to fix in the first place?

[Cindy Evanier]

I don't even understand why this demand for mod items is a thing.  If you don't want to buy a no mod item, don't.  Simple.  If you want  to sell a no mod item, fine you made it you can do whatever you want with it.  If someone wants an item to mod, buy one with those perms  or make it then you can do what you want with it.  

Everyone gets a choice.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

Best examples of "wish it was mod" I have are, things I want to add a rez script to, or things I want to change properties of (such as particles).

[Janet Voxel]

I have a couple mod bodies and I have to say the ability to add your own specular and normal maps has some amazing results. There are some fun things you can do with modding.

The only problem is the bodies that are mod....well. I’d look either like a otaku’s wet dream or a beanpole femboy thing. Neither of which really appeal to me as a regular avatar.

[Skell Dagger]

15 minutes ago, janetosilio said:

The only problem is the bodies that are mod....well. I’d look either like a otaku’s wet dream or a beanpole femboy thing

[Janet Voxel]

Just now, Skell Dagger said:

Yaaaas! Werk B****!!!

Edited December 20, 2017 by janetosilio
Auto correct

[Skell Dagger]

Nothing wrong with beanpole femboys. But they're not 'things'...