The No-Mod Rebuttal

[Qie Niangao]

2 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

ETA: I do know that a script in each rezzed object is necessary in order to tell the object to delete itself. I just don't remember why it's needed in temp-rezzed objects, because they are deleted by the system. I doesn't matter though, because the subject isn't temp-rezzers. It may be to do with positioning.

NOW I REMEMBER. It communicates its position, and position changes, with the rezzer.

Oh hmmm. In case there's confusion for readers, it matters who's setting the "no mod" (or temp-on-rez). If the content to be rezzed is bought already configured for use in a rezzer, then it can be no-mod (or temp-on-rez). The problem comes when stocking a scene rezzer with items that weren't exclusively sold for use in a rezzer -- those need to be modifiable either to set temp-on-rez or to insert the script associated with the rezzer.

(And yeah, in a temp-on-rez object, a script indeed might be used to position the rezzed object beyond the 10m range of llRezAtRoot.)

[Qie Niangao]

2 minutes ago, Penny Patton said:

 I'm wondering if doing it as a temp-attach item is a feasible way to do this. You don't need an experience to do temp-attach, it just works with a regular popup. Then the person receiving the teacup isn't receiving the actual teacup as inventory, just as a prop specific to that furniture.

Well, that's the problem with temp-attach: although it doesn't go to inventory if it's successfully attached, the actual transfer of ownership takes place before the attachment occurs, and things can go wrong during attachment. (In my post I cited the problem of the recipient having no open attachment slots; there are other failure conditions.) So it's a fairly common occurrence to see items floating around, intended to be temp-attached to their new owners, but those new owners are nowhere to be found. What you don't see are all the ones that started out stranded like that but new owners took into inventory, full perm.

(This is why I tried a jira for attachment-without-ownership. It's true that this is all really just one part of the larger next-next-owner permissions problem, but that's far too hairy for any SL developer to tackle, at least until the Lab gets this Sansar thing out of their system, so I aimed for what I thought might be more manageable -- but it went "thud" too.)

[Phil Deakins]

22 minutes ago, Penny Patton said:

How is it a "different viewpoint" if it's exactly what is suggested in the second sentence of the very first post of the thread?

Not exactly. Your 2nd sentence is quite different. It says this - " I will almost never buy no-mod and neither should you if you value your money, your land or your avatar." That's not at all the same as what I wrote.

 Not to mention, saying this comment wasn't meant to silence the discussion seems disingenuous when in this thread (as well as that other thread) you keep repeating it as a reply to everyone as if it is the only response, dismissing out of hand every comment pointing out that you're missing the point. Er...not really. You have a point of view which you state quite firmly as the only correct point of view. But it's merely a point of view. And I haven't dismissed what you say I've dismissed out of hand, because nobody has said that I'm missing the point. In fact, when I queried one part of your op, 2 people pointed out why you were right, whereupon I conceded the point. Remember?

My point of views differs a lot from yours, and I am perfectly entitled to state it. That's right, isn't it? Of course you are absolutely free to disagree with me, but I find your firm, but inaccurate, statement that anyone buying no-mod stuff is risking their "money, land, or avatar" to be quite irresponsible. You have a fixed opinion, which many others share, but it's irresponsible to scaremonger with inaccurate statements like that. You didn't actually say that people are risking those things, but it is very easy to infer it from your wording, simply because that's what it sounds like.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Love Zhaoying]

52 minutes ago, Penny Patton said:

 Who said anything about "forcing" creators to do anything? I'm already repeating myself here but this thread is about discussing the issue and spreading information people may not have considered. And how your post in any way a "reality check"? Suggesting people not buy no-mod is literally the second sentence of the original post of the thread.

How is it a "different viewpoint" if it's exactly what is suggested in the second sentence of the very first post of the thread?

 Not to mention, saying this comment wasn't meant to silence the discussion seems disingenuous when in this thread (as well as that other thread) you keep repeating it as a reply to everyone as if it is the only response, dismissing out of hand every comment pointing out that you're missing the point. 

There seems to be a discussion about this going on in the Sansar arena, where LL wanted to allow people to modify content they purchase off the Sansar marketplace but some sellers want it all locked down to the equivalent of no-mod. I had a link the other day but I can't seem to find it right now. I'm only kinda sorta following Sansar issues right now since I can't even log in over there.

I'm wondering if doing it as a temp-attach item is a feasible way to do this. You don't need an experience to do temp-attach, it just works with a regular popup. Then the person receiving the teacup isn't receiving the actual teacup as inventory, just as a prop specific to that furniture.

You seem obsessed with controlling this discussion. Any other opinions are immediately shot down! “Come discuss so long as you agree with ALL my points!”

[Rhonda Huntress]

First time discussing with Penny?

She has her crusades but usually has done her homework before starting.  However, you will never budge her opinion.  Whether she is championing progress or tilting at windmills it's all the same.  Read what she has to say if you want and then either take it or leave it.  Discussing it is just an exercise in frustration.

[Chic Aeon]

OK. I want to add a bit from a content creator's point of view; sort of the other side of this argument.  

Note that "I" sell my items as mod, but I can certainly understand why some creators will not.  

You make a lovely item. It has good textures, is reasonably sized, low prim, good LODs et al.   You sell it mod. 

and THEN --- your customer takes it all apart, slaps on some textures from the LIBRARY (OMG), tints it hot pink and violet with yellow accents ----- are you getting the drift here?  That would be FINE if no one but the customer SAW this new creation from your creation. But some do.  And unfortunately they believe that the original creator ("you" in this scenario) made this atrocious item .

The bottom line is that for some designers, the degrading their brand with cr***y mods is not something they are willing to deal with. 

I hear that. I just still sell myself mod anyway. 

[Sukubia Scarmon]

Maybe it's time creators give their customers some credits. 

For every person that tints a green dress red, there's another person that manages to actually DO make it look better. Even if it's just matching the asess..asseso... accsessoire - GOD I hate that word! - better to the rest of the outfit.
I also firmly believe that those people - the ones that just slap on a random texture or try to tint it a whole different color and think noone notices the difference - are a slim minority, and, important to me - I think most of the time it's just them learning how to do it in the first place. I mean, the first things I modded? OH BOI! Tint everything pitchblack and put on that low gloss, insta-latex! GLOW EVERYTHING! Did that look good? Well, to me, obviously. To anyone else? Doubtfull.

However. If I see someone with an obvious tinted dress, or a dress wich has a texture slapped onto it that doesn't really fit - I assume they did it themselfes, because I doubt a creator would release it that way and if they do, there's no loss there, really. But i might look it up if it's a nice mesh.

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

30 minutes ago, Chic Aeon said:

You make a lovely item. It has good textures, is reasonably sized, low prim, good LODs et al.   You sell it mod. 

and THEN --- your customer takes it all apart, slaps on some textures from the LIBRARY (OMG), tints it hot pink and violet with yellow accents ----- are you getting the drift here?  That would be FINE if no one but the customer SAW this new creation from your creation. But some do.  And unfortunately they believe that the original creator ("you" in this scenario) made this atrocious item .

The bottom line is that for some designers, the degrading their brand with cr***y mods is not something they are willing to deal with.

So how many people keep lists of atrociously textured things and refuse to ever set foot in the store or MP because of it?

I'd wager the number is vanishingly small. Keep in mind, this 'reason' only works if the boycotter refuses to look at the creator's other work and takes steps to avoid it when they might otherwise come across it.

If I'm understanding Penny correctly, part of her campaign is to refute some of the unfounded reasons why creators think no-mod is a good idea. I'm far from convinced that this one has any grounding to it.

[Pamela Galli]

I don’t disagree with Penny about no mod. My point is that ultimately demand determines supply, unless there is a monopoly of an essential product (which SL does not have). If people buy no mod products, creators will keep making them. If there is no demand for a product, creators will stop making it. 

So the target audience for penny’s message should be buyers, not sellers.  The reasons a seller chooses no mod permissions is really not that relevant. 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Pamela Galli

[Chic Aeon]

15 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

I don’t disagree with Penny about no mod. My point is that ultimately demand determines supply, unless there is a monopoly of an essential product (which SL does not have). If people buy no mod products, creators will keep making them. If there is no demand for a product, creators will stop making it. 

So the target audience for penny’s message should be buyers, not sellers.  The reasons a seller chooses no mod permissions is really not that relevant. 

Remember long ago with most items were TRANSFER and not COPY?   Now most items (except gachas of course) are COPY.  So I do agree that it is up to the consumers to set the standards. They hold the power. 

 

I personally don't by no mod items often. AND I am thrilled that I get the copy version of gachas and not the transfer in those blogger bags :D.   MANY designers now are offering tinting huds for wearables so you have a pretty good choice of what you can do so far as color.  Not the perfect solution of course, but it helps.  That DOES pretty much negate that "they are only doing it so that they can sell more" argument. 

 

[Penny Patton]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

You seem obsessed with controlling this discussion. Any other opinions are immediately shot down! “Come discuss so long as you agree with ALL my points!”

I asked you  a direct question, why are you avoiding answering it?

2 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

but I find your firm, but inaccurate, statement that anyone buying no-mod stuff is risking their "money, land, or avatar" to be quite irresponsible. You have a fixed opinion, which many others share, but it's irresponsible to scaremonger with inaccurate statements like that. You didn't actually say that people are risking those things, but it is very easy to infer it from your wording, simply because that's what it sounds like.

I linked to an article I wrote explaining in detail how no-mod content makes it impossible to get the full value of any land you pay for, for all practical purposes forcing you to throw money away. I also linked to an article about how oversized content costs landowners money. These links are included to give context to my statements. If you contend any of the points I make in those articles, please, argue those points. I will attempt to clarify any points you don't understand, or demonstrate any claims you are skeptical about.

1 hour ago, Rhonda Huntress said:

First time discussing with Penny?

She has her crusades but usually has done her homework before starting.  However, you will never budge her opinion.  Whether she is championing progress or tilting at windmills it's all the same.  Read what she has to say if you want and then either take it or leave it.  Discussing it is just an exercise in frustration.

 I will always consider a reasonable argument. The thing to keep in mind is that I always, always, show my work. Anything I've ever claimed on a forum I have demonstrated in-world time and again.

[Phil Deakins]

16 minutes ago, Penny Patton said:

I linked to an article I wrote explaining in detail how no-mod content makes it impossible to get the full value of any land you pay for, for all practical purposes forcing you to throw money away. I also linked to an article about how oversized content costs landowners money. These links are included to give context to my statements. If you contend any of the points I make in those articles, please, argue those points. I will attempt to clarify any points you don't understand, or demonstrate any claims you are skeptical about.

No money is thrown away when you buy no-mod items. You are wrong about that, regardless of what you say in your article, but you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. If what you buy is oversized, and you can't change it, you shouldn't have bought it. It's that simple. I don't need to argue any points in your article. I am perfectly capable of arguing my own points, bearing in mind that (I think) I have vastly more experience of it than you have.

 I will always consider a reasonable argument. The thing to keep in mind is that I always, always, show my work. Anything I've ever claimed on a forum I have demonstrated in-world time and again.

I have a huge amount of experience of creating and selling furniture, which is one of the largest sections of the mod/no-mod considerations. Unless you can equal or better my experience, then your inworld demonstrations don't mean a great deal to me. I imagine that they are merely some scenarios where you were not able to do what you wanted to do with stuff.

I do realise that you'd like an SL where you buy things as a basis, and then you edit them to suit your particular preferences. But that's not what (I believe) the majority of people in SL want - largely because they like what they bought, which, strange as it may seem, is why they bought it.

You have the ability to edit stuff to your taste, but most people don't have that ability. You want an SL that suits you and your abilities, but most people aren't looking for that. You already have an SL that does what you want, in that you can buy modifiable stuff, so you have nothing to complain about.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

2 hours ago, Chic Aeon said:

OK. I want to add a bit from a content creator's point of view; sort of the other side of this argument.  

Note that "I" sell my items as mod, but I can certainly understand why some creators will not.  

You make a lovely item. It has good textures, is reasonably sized, low prim, good LODs et al.   You sell it mod. 

and THEN --- your customer takes it all apart, slaps on some textures from the LIBRARY (OMG), tints it hot pink and violet with yellow accents ----- are you getting the drift here?  That would be FINE if no one but the customer SAW this new creation from your creation. But some do.  And unfortunately they believe that the original creator ("you" in this scenario) made this atrocious item .

The bottom line is that for some designers, the degrading their brand with cr***y mods is not something they are willing to deal with. 

I hear that. I just still sell myself mod anyway. 

You forgot to include that many of those people then ask you if you can fix it for them because they've made a right pig's ear of it

I sold a lot of furniture over a lot of years and, like you, it was all mod - except for one sculpture, which needed to be no-mod, or what's the point in buying it?

[Pamela Galli]

Penny, since demand drives supply, why not write a version of your case for mod, but directed at buyers?  It doesn’t matter how many no mod products someone sells, it matters how many mod products someone buys. 

[Paul Hexem]

8 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

You have the ability to edit stuff to your taste, but most people don't have that ability. You want an SL that suits you and your abilities, but most people aren't looking for that. You already have an SL that does what you want, in that you can buy modifiable stuff, so you have nothing to complain about.

This isn't entirely true.

There's plenty here to complain about. A previous example comes back to mind.

There's only a couple actually useful mesh bodies available on the market because not enough people are aware of the pros and cons.

[Phil Deakins]

Ah. I did say earlier than I haven't been talking about avatars - bodies, etc. Basically I don't know anything about them. I do use a mesh body, but it doesn't mean that I know anything about them. Also, I know little to nothing about clothing. My experience has been with furniture, and that's where I've been coming from.

[Tari Landar]

22 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

No money is thrown away when you buy no-mod items. You are wrong about that

I happen to agree with Penny on this, that there are instances where money IS thrown away on buying no-mod items...regardless of what *you* say, lol. Granted, it is MY money to throw away, but I won't deny that I have indeed thrown it away, or at least felt as if I had thrown it away. People throw money away on things all the time. The problem, if one wants to call it that at all, is that people define "money thrown away" differently. I'm not real sure why it's difficult for some to realize that money can be thrown away, or is thrown away int he opinion(s) of some. I'm also not sure why you think you're right, and Penny is wrong on that.

Shrugs, I think you're bantering semantics to make it seem as if you're debating, but you're doing the same thing you're accusing Penny of doing...you're using your own opinion as a basis of fact, while claiming that her opinion isn't fact(at least, this is what your words suggest, I am not certain if this is the intention, though).

Shrugs..different strokes for different folks. I don't mind buying some no-mod stuff(very little, but some), but most of what I buy is mod..'cuz I like to tinker, and if I cared even an iota about a seller's opinion regarding my tinkering with "their" creations, I wouldn't be where I am today in sl   I don't care if I make it fugly in their opinion, my money, my product(well, my license to use said product based on the perms they gave me).

[Phil Deakins]

@Tari Landar

I can't disagree that money can be thrown away by buying no-mod things, just as it can be thrown away by buying anything if it turns out to be unsuitable, but that's not what Penny said. She said, "I linked to an article I wrote explaining in detail how no-mod content makes it impossible to get the full value of any land you pay for, for all practical purposes forcing you to throw money away." She said that buying no-mod things effectively throws away some of the money that's paid for the land, but that's not right. As I read it, what she meant was something like this:- you can buy an item to place on the land that could use less LI than it does, but you can't make it use less LI because it's no-mod, which means that you're not getting the full amount of LI that you could get if you were able to make the change.

And don't forget that there's an exceptionally good chance that the object's LI can't be reduced, so not even LI is wasted, let alone money, which alone make Penny's statement wrong. She didn't say that some no-mod items would waste LI. What she said meant ALL no-mod items.

You said that "people define 'money thrown away' differently". That may be true, but I can't agree that getting a bit less LI than is possible on the land is effectively money thrown away. The same money is spent for the land regardless of what's put on it. I could agree that, with some no-mod items, LI is wasted, but not money. Penny seems to like to put things in as bad a light as possible,  even if the way she puts it isn't right. Is she a politician?

ETA: Actually, no LI is wasted. The land-owner or tenant still gets all the LI that the land allows. It's just that, in some cases, the land will hold fewer objects because one or more object is using more LI than it needs to.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Tari Landar]

21 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

You said that "people define 'money thrown away' differently". That may be true, but I can't agree that getting a bit less LI than is possible on the land is effectively money thrown away. The same money is spent for the land regardless of what's put on it. I could agree that, with some no-mod items, LI is wasted, but not money. Penny seems to like to put things in as bad a light as possible,  even if the way she puts it isn't right. Is she a politician?

Ok, but what about land for which people pay by the prim, though? As many land rentals today charge, whether openly or seemingly, per prim/LI, if one is getting less items on that land, they are indeed wasting money.throwing it away, on land, or at least *might* be.  It may not be your opinion, but it's certainly the opinion of loads of folks that watch their LI carefully, because they pay for land based on LI, not just size. 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Tari Landar

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

18 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

She said that buying no-mod things effectively throws away some of the money that's paid for the land, but that's not right. As I read it, what she meant was something like this:- you can buy an item to place on the land that could use less LI than it does, but you can't make it use less LI because it's no-mod, which means that you're not getting the full amount of LI that you could get if you were able to make the change.

No, Phil, that's not what Penny is saying.

What she's saying is that with clever use of rezzers and doors, someone can have several sim's worth of content on a medium-sized parcel.

Basically, she's set the bar for "getting full value" from a parcel much higher than most of us have dreamt of. The rezzers need their items to be mod, so no-mod items mean that "full value" can't be utilised.

[Phil Deakins]

@Tari Landar

In that case some LI would be wasted if an item's LI wasn't as low as it could be. I can't dispute that. What I do dispute (with Penny, not with you ) is that all no-mod items effectively throw money away, which is what Penny wrote. The chances are high that no LI can be squeezed out of a great many no-mod objects, possibly even most of them. Creators do tend to know what they're doing concerning LI. No doubt not all of them, but probably most of them. Penny's sweeping statement that "no-mod content makes it impossible to get the full value of any land you pay for, for all practical purposes forcing you to throw money away" is simply wrong, because much of the no-mod stuff has already been squeezed of as much LI as is possible.

ETA: On reflection, no LI is wasted. It just means that in some cases the land will hold fewer objects than it could hold if not all the objects are optimised for LI.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

21 minutes ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

No, Phil, that's not what Penny is saying.

What she's saying is that with clever use of rezzers and doors, someone can have several sim's worth of content on a medium-sized parcel.

Basically, she's set the bar for "getting full value" from a parcel much higher than most of us have dreamt of. The rezzers need their items to be mod, so no-mod items mean that "full value" can't be utilised.

She didn't actually say that, but she may well have meant it, in which case, not only am I back at saying, if it's not suitable, don't buy it, but I'd also contend that the number of people who get into that sort of object manipulation must be comparatively very few indeed, and I'd see it as Penny campaigning for the creators in SL to cater for what she wants for herself, but putting it across as something that applies to everyone.

Incidentally, I'm not arguing in favour of no-mod objects. Everything I made and sold was mod, except for a sculpture. I'm arguing against something Penny wrote about it, because what she wrote was wrong, even in the light of your comment, Bitsy, because she didn't say that it's meant for those who manipulate objects in that sort of way. She used the widest brush possible and wrote so that applied to everyone - EVERYONE would be effectively throwing money away with ALL no-mod objects. It's just wrong.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

4 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

(And yeah, in a temp-on-rez object, a script indeed might be used to position the rezzed object beyond the 10m range of llRezAtRoot.)

In the case of my temp-rezzer, a script was placed in each object, and the objects placed in the rezzer. Then it rezzed them, and the user positioned them where s/he wanted them. Then the rezzer asked each object for it's position and rotation. That's how it knew where to rez them. In use, when an object is repositioned, its script automatically told the rezzer where it now is. Stuff like that. It never exceeded the 10m limit.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Tari Landar]

10 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

@Tari Landar

In that case some LI would be wasted if an item's LI wasn't as low as it could be. I can't dispute that. What I do dispute (with Penny, not with you ) is that all no-mod items effectively throw money away, which is what Penny wrote. The chances are high that no LI can be squeezed out of a great many no-mod objects, possibly even most of them. Creators do tend to know what they're doing concerning LI. No doubt not all of them, but probably most of them. Penny's sweeping statement that "no-mod content makes it impossible to get the full value of any land you pay for, for all practical purposes forcing you to throw money away" is simply wrong, because much of the no-mod stuff has already been squeezed of as much LI as is possible.

You must shop less than I do. Because, yeah, creators are amazing creatures, and they make some truly awesome stuff. But, a LOT of what I buy can absolutely be optimized better. That's actually a huge part of why I love mod stuff, I can make loads of things less LI than they are at the time of my purchase without much hassle.  My saying that doesn't, in any way, suggest that most or all creators don't know what they're doing. I very much appreciate everything they do-heck I appreciate even crappy creators. But optimization isn't mostly, let alone always, a priority....and *I* am perfectly a-ok with that, love it even ('cuz then I get to tinker even more, which is my favorite hobby in sl). I have lots of template style (ie, items created from existing mesh templates/objects) items from various different creators..all with their own touches on the exact same thing. I know for a fact they could be optimized, because I, often, will go and buy the template myself if I like the items enough, so I can tinker with it too. I actually have quite a few furniture, decor, and even building supplies pieces like that. Which I realize probably sounds funny, when I could have bought the template originally and saved myself some cash, but sometimes I don't realize it's a template item until I see it sold by multiple folks. Some people are amazing at texturing, so having two of the same couch(or, whatever), in different textures/styles, isn't unusual for me. I have countless items like this in my inventory. So, sometimes, I do waste my own money...it happens, but I do so knowingly (usually, lol). Others might not know that they're doing it though, so I can understand both sides of the coin, I suppose. 

My experience with stuff I've bought is the exact opposite of yours, I bet, though. I hate clothes shopping(I buy maybe 1 or 2 articles of clothing in a year's time, if even), so, none of my opinions are in regards to clothes shopping-I have no idea how it is with clothes, or mesh bodies (I own one mesh body, I will never own another, I have no interest in them, and limited knowledge about them)...just objects, furniture, houses...stuff like that which typically gets rezzed out, not worn. 

[Phil Deakins]

@Tari Landar

I have to admit that I don't shop, although I did go out and buy suit for a wedding a couple of months ago. I had to. I was giving the bride away (I tried to sell her but there were no takers ). I also have to admit that when I've used the word 'most', 'many', and words like that, I've been using my rule of thumb - best guesses, because, as an ex-creator, it makes sense to me. I know that I reduced the LI of everything as far as it would go, and I naturally assume that most creators do the same with stuff that they made since not long after LI was introduced, because LI is a big part of objects now.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Phil Deakins