Why are mesh products no mod?

[Luna Bliss]

9 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

Just my opinion here, but if your products were so perfect as to defy the need to ever be modified, you wouldn't be this defensive about it.

I think he's defensive about it because someone is telling him that creating some of his items as no-mod is wrong -- in other words they are saying that only their perspective is the right one.

I don't see what he wants as wrong though, nor do I think customers who want no-mod items are wrong. Like he said, if a customer wants something no-mod they can shop elsewhere, problem solved.

[FairreLilette]

12 hours ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Not to mention that slander is a RL issue - not an SL thing in any way.

It can be both, and it is also a biblical issue.  But, slander is falsely accusing your brother or sister, not telling others about products that are no mod - although I don't see the need to do that.  A vast majority of clothing is no mod and many of us already know that.   I also just made a few new outfits just these past weeks and everything is copy and mod for the accessories that need to be fitted as these are items for tiny cat avatars (Dinkies) and need unrigged items but the dresses, panties and shoes are copy only.  Why did I do that, the dress or outfit is not going to look right in other colors if one tints it.  It was my judgement call on that.  Although I do offer low budget tint your own clothing for Dinkies, these just didn't fit into that category in my opinion.

 

12 hours ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

So, if you want modifiable clothing, you are welcome to make it yourself.

Yeah, pretty much this.  There are full perm kits people can buy to make their own clothing.

[Paul Hexem]

7 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

telling him that creating some of his items as no-mod is wrong

Because generally, creators that make stuff no mod are wrong. The reasons he listed fall into that category.

[Kimmi Zehetbauer]

22 hours ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Definitely no TOS violation involved there.  You can pretty much say anything you want about someone else in SL as long as you aren't divulging personal information or outing their alts or things like that.  Giving others your opinion about a creator and telling them that you simply will not buy from them because they don't want anyone messing with their "art" is not slander.  Folks are totally allowed to tell everyone they know not to buy from creator XYZ for any reason at all.   Absolutely nothing slanderous about it at all.

Not to mention that slander is a RL issue - not an SL thing in any way.

I don't know where that person got slander thing from, since my comment was to tell people I know to avoid stores like that. Her comment did give me a giggle though.

Edited February 5, 2021 by Kimmi Zehetbauer
Forgot the word "know."

[Luna Bliss]

On 2/4/2021 at 4:43 PM, Paul Hexem said:

On 2/4/2021 at 8:48 AM, Luna Bliss said:

telling him that creating some of his items as no-mod is wrong

Because generally, creators that make stuff no mod are wrong. The reasons he listed fall into that category.

How difficult is it to retexture clothes? I never mess with them but imagine it needs some Photoshop type skills?

Edited February 6, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Paul Hexem]

3 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

How difficult is it to retexture clothes? I never mess with them but imagine it needs some Photoshop type skills?

Nearly everything in SL requires some set of skills at this point, but compared to actually making the mesh, rigging it, and making it easy enough to be retextured? Really, really easy.

[animats]

I'd like to be able to mark an object as tamper-evident. Buyers could modify it with the edit window, but making changes should raise flags such as "SCRIPTS MODIFIED", "LINKS MODIFIED", and "TEXTURES MODIFIED", etc. visible in the edit window. That voids the warranty and they get no support.

[HarrisonMcKenzie]

On 2/3/2021 at 10:03 PM, Paul Hexem said:

Just my opinion here, but if your products were so perfect as to defy the need to ever be modified, you wouldn't be this defensive about it.

Anyone that thinks no one in SL can create (retexture, script, whatever) better than them, or thinks that LL will never do anything to break their product (remember invisiprims and shoes?) is naïve at best. Saying "my work is perfect any any modification you'd do to it would be garbage"? I don't even have polite words for that.

I have nothing to say to you in response to such a hateful, ignorant comment. Do not ever speak to me again, and do not EVER spin what someone says into nonsense like this.

On 2/3/2021 at 7:42 PM, RowanMinx said:

Pretty sure stating your opinion on a product/creator is NOT slander or no one would be allowed to give a bad review.

Slander is making a false statement.  Opinions are opinions not factual statements.  

Slandering other users is slander. Naming other users is slander and against the ToS. There's a difference between a bad review and an active campaign of slander. Learn the difference.

On 2/4/2021 at 3:43 PM, Paul Hexem said:

Because generally, creators that make stuff no mod are wrong. The reasons he listed fall into that category.

No, it isn't. It is not objectively and morally wrong to use the permission system. If a creator does not want you altering their work, that is THEIR choice, NOT YOURS, and their choice to do that is not objectively wrong. Rather, your narcissistic attitude and your insistence of pushing your values onto others is what's wrong here. Quit your virtue signaling and soapboxing.

[Rowan Amore]

24 minutes ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

Slandering other users is slander. Naming other users is slander and against the ToS. There's a difference between a bad review and an active campaign of slander. Learn the difference.

Telling my friends I won't be buying from a specific creator because of how I was treated by them is not slander if it's true.  I can name whomever I'd like as long as I don't post it in a public LL forum or website.  Including in my review of a product that I received poor service is not slander if it's true.  Now, if they want to come after me in RL claiming slander, good luck with that.

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by RowanMinx

[Luna Bliss]

15 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

18 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

How difficult is it to retexture clothes? I never mess with them but imagine it needs some Photoshop type skills?

Nearly everything in SL requires some set of skills at this point, but compared to actually making the mesh, rigging it, and making it easy enough to be retextured? Really, really easy.

Do people bake textures onto clothes? That would make them superior to what anyone could do in Photoshop...I mean if they did it skillfully.  At least that's how it is with Blender and nature elements.

[HarrisonMcKenzie]

1 hour ago, RowanMinx said:

Telling my friends I won't be buying from a specific creator because of how I was treated by them is not slander if it's true.  I can name whomever I'd like as long as I don't post it in a public LL forum or website.  Including in my review of a product that I received poor service is not slander if it's true.  Now, if they want to come after me in RL claiming slander, good luck with that.

Except that telling a friend isn't what you or anyone else is talking about. You're talking about a systematic, public campaign of slander so as to destroy the reputation of a creator and cause their business to fail, simply because a creator is exercising their rights to something, and that's not an acceptable course of action. Creators who sell items without full permission are not lying, cheating, tricking, or otherwise misleading other users. They are not selling objectively broken items that cannot be used for their intended purpose. If any of those were the case, then it might be acceptable to discuss the issue in a civil manner. But that's not what we're talking about, nor is that what's happening. We're talking about people slandering others because their feelings are hurt. That is what's happening in this and every other "trigger" thread people make to slam creators for exercising their rights, and you are a bold faced liar if you're going to try and spin this any other way. That's all it is, and do not pretend for 1 second that it's anything else.

But you're not going to listen to any of that, because you've made it abundantly clear that your mind is closed to new ideas. So let me simplify this. If you buy something, and the seller has been transparent about the permissions for with the item is set, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RECOURSE TO COMPLAIN, SLANDER, OR LEAVE NEGATIVE REVIEWS FOR THAT PRODUCT. Let me make this 100% clear to you. YOU bought the item in question. You, as a functioning adult with the ability to make informed choices and give informed consent, CHOSE to buy something knowing that it didn't have the permissions you are looking for. That is an error on your part and no one else's. No one held a gun to your head and made you purchase the item in duress. No one mislead you. YOU took an action, and now YOU are regretting. Do NOT project your mistakes and your failings onto other people, and do NOT try and pretend that there are no consequences for your actions.

Do you understand that? Do you understand the difference here? Or are you just going to ignore me and continue to whine and moan about your own mistakes like people always do in these kinds of thread?

[Rowan Amore]

37 minutes ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

Except that telling a friend isn't what you or anyone else is talking about. You're talking about a systematic, public campaign of slander so as to destroy the reputation of a creator and cause their business to fail, simply because a creator is exercising their rights to something, and that's not an acceptable course of action. Creators who sell items without full permission are not lying, cheating, tricking, or otherwise misleading other users. They are not selling objectively broken items that cannot be used for their intended purpose. If any of those were the case, then it might be acceptable to discuss the issue in a civil manner. But that's not what we're talking about, nor is that what's happening. We're talking about people slandering others because their feelings are hurt. That is what's happening in this and every other "trigger" thread people make to slam creators for exercising their rights, and you are a bold faced liar if you're going to try and spin this any other way. That's all it is, and do not pretend for 1 second that it's anything else.

But you're not going to listen to any of that, because you've made it abundantly clear that your mind is closed to new ideas. So let me simplify this. If you buy something, and the seller has been transparent about the permissions for with the item is set, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RECOURSE TO COMPLAIN, SLANDER, OR LEAVE NEGATIVE REVIEWS FOR THAT PRODUCT. Let me make this 100% clear to you. YOU bought the item in question. You, as a functioning adult with the ability to make informed choices and give informed consent, CHOSE to buy something knowing that it didn't have the permissions you are looking for. That is an error on your part and no one else's. No one held a gun to your head and made you purchase the item in duress. No one mislead you. YOU took an action, and now YOU are regretting. Do NOT project your mistakes and your failings onto other people, and do NOT try and pretend that there are no consequences for your actions.

Do you understand that? Do you understand the difference here? Or are you just going to ignore me and continue to whine and moan about your own mistakes like people always do in these kinds of thread?

 

On 11/6/2020 at 7:34 PM, Gabriele Graves said:

One reply I got from a well known creator when I asked for mod version to change the partial transparency of part of the outfit that was clashing with my hair and which I didn't really want that part partially transparent was along the lines of "This is my art and my vision, I don't want people misrepresenting my art by wearing altered copies".

I don't believe I have bought from them since.

To which @Kimmi Zehetbauerresponded:

On 11/6/2020 at 10:40 PM, Kimmi Zehetbauer said:

If I got that from the creator I'd kindly tell him/her I won't be buying future products from them and let others know too.

To which you responded:

On 2/3/2021 at 9:22 PM, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

That sounds an awful lot like slander/libel. You would be wise not to slander other users because your feelings are hurt, as that can be a ToS violation.

 

This is what I was responding to as not being slander no matter how you try to spin it.

As to whatever you're ranting on about, I couldn't care less but the remarks I was referring to are NOT slander.

[HarrisonMcKenzie]

56 minutes ago, RowanMinx said:

As to whatever you're ranting on about, I couldn't care less but the remarks I was referring to are NOT slander.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. You know exactly what I'm talking about, but I'm done with you. You clearly haven't listen to a thing I've said and show absolutely no interest in learning or growing. It's really hard to have a constructive conversation when one party completely ignores the other, keeps moving the goal post, and keeps fabricating what is being said. Bye. Don't let my store's door hit you on the way out.

[Theresa Tennyson]

17 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

Nearly everything in SL requires some set of skills at this point, but compared to actually making the mesh, rigging it, and making it easy enough to be retextured? Really, really easy.

Trying to retexture a piece of clothing that you've bought retail (i.e. not including separate textures) is going to be a fool's errand because you won't have a UV map or clean shading to work from. Odds are anyone driven to do something like that will just buy a template.

[Theresa Tennyson]

3 hours ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

Rather, your narcissistic attitude and your insistence of pushing your values onto others is what's wrong here. Quit your virtue signaling and soapboxing.

 

1 hour ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

But you're not going to listen to any of that, because you've made it abundantly clear that your mind is closed to new ideas.

 

10 minutes ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

You clearly haven't listen to a thing I've said and show absolutely no interest in learning or growing. It's really hard to have a constructive conversation when one party completely ignores the other, keeps moving the goal post, and keeps fabricating what is being said.

Nothing to add.

[Rowan Amore]

29 minutes ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

Whatever helps you sleep at night. You know exactly what I'm talking about, but I'm done with you. You clearly haven't listen to a thing I've said and show absolutely no interest in learning or growing. It's really hard to have a constructive conversation when one party completely ignores the other, keeps moving the goal post, and keeps fabricating what is being said. Bye. Don't let my store's door hit you on the way out.

No, actually you're the one who quoted ME and didn't pay attention to what I was addressing.  You seemed to be the one inferring things from my posts that I did not say.

Btw, I'll be pointing my friends to your posts here.  Would that be considered slander?

Edited February 6, 2021 by RowanMinx

[Scylla Rhiadra]

51 minutes ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

Whatever helps you sleep at night. You know exactly what I'm talking about, but I'm done with you. You clearly haven't listen to a thing I've said and show absolutely no interest in learning or growing. It's really hard to have a constructive conversation when one party completely ignores the other, keeps moving the goal post, and keeps fabricating what is being said. Bye. Don't let my store's door hit you on the way out.

Can I suggest a quick course in Public Relations 100?

Your tone and language here is not making you someone I'd particularly want to patronize with my business, to be honest.

Perhaps you can lower the temperature a bit? I haven't seen anyone -- and especially neither Kimmi or Rowan -- who have said anything to merit this level of vituperation.

[Paul Hexem]

5 hours ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

I have nothing to say to you in response to such a hateful, ignorant comment. Do not ever speak to me again, and do not EVER spin what someone says into nonsense like this.

Slandering other users is slander. Naming other users is slander and against the ToS. There's a difference between a bad review and an active campaign of slander. Learn the difference.

No, it isn't. It is not objectively and morally wrong to use the permission system. If a creator does not want you altering their work, that is THEIR choice, NOT YOURS, and their choice to do that is not objectively wrong. Rather, your narcissistic attitude and your insistence of pushing your values onto others is what's wrong here. Quit your virtue signaling and soapboxing.

If that's hateful, I'd love to see how you'd react to the actual mean things I could say, like asking you if you're finished crying.

There's nothing narcissistic about wanting to use something once you've paid for it. Narcissistic is claiming everyone makes garbage compared to your superior and awesome coloring inside the lines skills.

 

4 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Do people bake textures onto clothes? That would make them superior to what anyone could do in Photoshop...I mean if they did it skillfully.  At least that's how it is with Blender and nature elements.

The creators selling full perm stuff will often provide texture templates that do 90% of the work for you. They do the hard work. Recoloring it, even adding logos and patterns, is ridiculously easy by comparison. I speak from direct experience, I've used many a mesh template myself, and I thank them for providing the resources.

 

2 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Trying to retexture a piece of clothing that you've bought retail (i.e. not including separate textures) is going to be a fool's errand because you won't have a UV map or clean shading to work from. Odds are anyone driven to do something like that will just buy a template.

Yeah, I was specifically talking about templates, which is what was mentioned if I was reading the thread correctly.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Paul Hexem

[LittleMe Jewell]

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Your tone and language here is not making you someone I'd particularly want to patronize with my business, to be honest.

Maybe he's still role playing his inworld age.  5th graders are known for temper tantrums.  His bio even says that he can be "over-emotional sometimes".

Edited February 7, 2021 by LittleMe Jewell

[Drayke Newall]

7 hours ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

Do you understand that? Do you understand the difference here? Or are you just going to ignore me and continue to whine and moan about your own mistakes like people always do in these kinds of thread?

As far as most people would be concerned, once an object is bought the creator no longer owns it and therefore the purchaser should be able to do whatever they like with it other than selling it. It is exactly the same in RL as far as physical objects are concerned.

As an Architect most of my designs are considered by law works of art as far as copyright goes. I don't however go around saying to someone, how dare you paint the walls that colour. Don't get me wrong, sometimes I wish I could, however once I am finished with the project and they have purchased it, they can do what they like with it. Why is SL any different?

5 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Trying to retexture a piece of clothing that you've bought retail (i.e. not including separate textures) is going to be a fool's errand because you won't have a UV map or clean shading to work from. Odds are anyone driven to do something like that will just buy a template.

It can be done if you have the patience and use the temp upload texture feature and work out the UV map that way. Most UV maps are pretty standard when it comes to objects, with some just being upside down, mirrored etc. There are some however which are so odd that it would be impossible.

Those that can be changed is very time consuming and yes I have done it that way in the past on a mod product because I really liked the product.

Edited February 7, 2021 by Drayke Newall
IV -> UV correction

[Kimmi Zehetbauer]

4 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Can I suggest a quick course in Public Relations 100?

Your tone and language here is not making you someone I'd particularly want to patronize with my business, to be honest.

Perhaps you can lower the temperature a bit? I haven't seen anyone -- and especially neither Kimmi or Rowan -- who have said anything to merit this level of vituperation.

True.  Since all I said I would let my friends know to avoid his shop via private PMs. That is no way any slander, more like in RL when you'll tell someone to avoid a certain store due to bad customer support.

[Qie Niangao]

8 hours ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

Slandering other users is slander. Naming other users is slander and against the ToS. There's a difference between a bad review and an active campaign of slander. Learn the difference.

That part I highlighted: Can anybody guess what that could be intended to mean? "Naming"?

Might this be referring to forums "name and shame" behavior? That's obviously nothing to do with "slander" but it would be forbidden. But if one posts to the forum, they've sorta named themselves, right? The forum policy isn't some legalistic trick to prevent any responses.  So what might this mean?

[Rowan Amore]

10 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

That part I highlighted: Can anybody guess what that could be intended to mean? "Naming"?

Might this be referring to forums "name and shame" behavior? That's obviously nothing to do with "slander" but it would be forbidden. But if one posts to the forum, they've sorta named themselves, right? The forum policy isn't some legalistic trick to prevent any responses.  So what might this mean?

Your guess is as good as mine.  The only thing I commented about in this thread was his claim that something someone said was slander and it clearly was not.  The rest of the tirade they went off on had nothing whatsoever to do with what I said or quoted.  They certainly didn't do their business any favors IMO.  I think they may have gotten this thread mixed up with the one about the SLBB website.

[Cinos Field]

While I certainly don't agree with no mod items at all - and refuse to buy them except in some edge cases - there is this thing with a user modifying an item to look better than the original. It might result in them getting a lot of questions.

For example, I have some hair from one of the big names that I retextured, because I liked the mesh, but hated the textures, so I fixed it. I get people asking me about where it's from since they inspected and couldn't find it in the store. It might be that the creators also get asked about it, and they might be tired of it.

That's just about the only genuine reason I can think of. The "work of art" thing stops applying once it's mass-produced, IMO; if random SL meshes are art then so is a meal at McDonalds.

[Qie Niangao]

1 hour ago, Cinos Field said:

While I certainly don't agree with no mod items at all - and refuse to buy them except in some edge cases - there is this thing with a user modifying an item to look better than the original. It might result in them getting a lot of questions.

Yeah. I find I get fewer questions -- and probably the creators do, too -- if I rename the item "Qie HAKT previous item name" as a warning that this exact item isn't available as-is from the mesh creator. (I tweak scripts in a lot of unattached mesh, so "hakt" is more apt in those cases, but I guess it would be a hint with worn items, too -- which most often involves fixing materials properties the creator applied without understanding how they work.)