What Justification Is There For No Mod Permissions?

[Rick Nightingale]

1 minute ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Well I'm afraid that's where our opinions differ...

Your own statement in the previous post:

28 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

allowing everyone to have the creative freedom to do whatever the platform allows

flies in opposition to

3 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

nobody but the creator should have any say in whether they choose to grant that right or not

Sounds like you are a fan of things like buying a license to use a product only in accordance with the sellers wishes, rather than actually owning the product you bought. In that, we certainly do disagree, and I disagree strongly, and have every right to say so here.

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

Just now, Rick Nightingale said:

Your own statement in the previous post:

flies in opposition to

Sounds like you are a fan of things like buying a license to use a product only in accordance with the sellers wishes, rather than actually owning the product you bought. In that, we certainly do disagree, and I disagree strongly, and have every right to say so here.

Having access to the creative tools and options provided by the platform and having unlimited access to the content that other residents have created are two very different things.

[Rick Nightingale]

I'm not asking for 'unlimited access' - please don't broaden the point to things I haven't said. If I want unlimited access I'll buy the .blend file when available. We're talking about the simple ability to modify what we buy within the abilities provided by the platform and allowed by LL.

Just because LL has given the ability for makers to set no-mod permissions does not make it blanket-acceptable to do so and we should just shut up and accept it.

Anyway... as always, these discussions just end up feeling like banging one's head against an unmoving 'we have the right to restrict your rights because we can and you are just being unreasonable wanting to modify my perfect creation and how dare you criticise me for it' wall.

I'm out.

Edited April 30 by Rick Nightingale

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

7 minutes ago, Rick Nightingale said:

I'm not asking for 'unlimited access' - please don't broaden the point to things I haven't said. If I want unlimited access I'll buy the .blend file when available. We're talking about the simple ability to modify what we buy within the abilities provided by the platform and allowed by LL.

No, you're talking about forcing creators to provide the content they create with the permissions that you want rather than allowing them to choose for themselves.

9 minutes ago, Rick Nightingale said:

Just because LL has given the ability for makers to set no-mod permissions does not make it blanket-acceptable to do so and we should just shut up and accept it.

Well the very fact that LL gave creators the ability to set no-mod permissions seems to suggest that as far as LL are concerned it is blanket-acceptable for them to do so?!

10 minutes ago, Rick Nightingale said:

Anyway... as always, these discussions just end up feeling like banging one's head against an unmoving 'we have the right to restrict your rights because we can and you are just being unreasonable wanting to modify my perfect creation and how dare you criticise me for it' wall.

I'm out.

Wait, so you are just gonna "shut up and accept it."?  Now I am confused! 😕

[Rick Nightingale]

24 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Wait, so you are just gonna "shut up and accept it."?  Now I am confused! 😕

How clever you are - and it shows the exact sort of attitude that I'm leaving the thread for before I'm tempted to stoop that low myself 🙄

Now I'll stop wasting my breath typing fingers ☠️

Edited April 30 by Rick Nightingale

[Qie Niangao]

2 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

We have all types of customers in SL, and I believe that most of the posters here are old-timers and value this stuff, but I think they care too much about this - when the average user probably does not. Again, nice to have, nice to provide, but not necessary.

It's not necessary for some. If there were nothing to customize in SL, nothing that I could modify to put some stamp on the environment short of importing an all-inclusive, fully-furnished prefab or pre-outfitted avatar, I wouldn't be back. Nothing for me here.

The thing is, we don't actually know whether SL has a viable market without end-user content customization as an activity.  When the oldbies join the "What's there to do?" chorus, times might get tough.

--------------------------

A sidenote: It's Fantasy Faire time. I've noticed that the vast majority of fantasy content is deeply modifiable, indeed is designed to make modification easy and rewarding. Lots of UV maps, well-chosen materials (mesh faces), all that jazz. For those of us who value modifiability, it's a delight. Those who will never modify anything may be complaining bitterly that they have that permission on these products—too much choice!—but somehow I kinda doubt it. 

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

No, you're talking about forcing creators to provide the content they create with the permissions that you want rather than allowing them to choose for themselves.

I agree with you here. We created it, so we should have the final say...the ultimate decision. It seems many consumers (at least those on this forum) don't believe we should have that right -- it's like they believe it should be taken away from us.

I do make my stuff mod because I believe (for what I sell) it's beneficial for my customers. But I balk at the idea that anybody thinks they have the right tell me that what I create should absolutely be the way they want it.

[Extrude Ragu]

The original title of this thread was

"What Justification Is There For No Mod Permissions?"

As I see it, this thread was never about 'forcing' creators to change their ways, or changing their rights. It is simply a discussion of their ways, and if they are really justifiable from a moral perspective.

My opinion on the subject is no. It's not justified. It comes from a very selfish desire to extract as much money out of the platform as possible, without doing anything to sustain it so that others may thrive on it like they have done so themselves. The desire to prevent would-be creators from 'reverse engineering' their creations speaks volumes about the type of creator they are and how they think of their fellow resident or rather how they don't think of them at all.

A lot of these very same creators rely on a lot of other peoples kindness to be able to create at all. Be it the open source tools they use, the tutorials people make for them. The helpful resident who teaches them how to do something for nothing. Chances are high that they rely on hundreds of peoples kindness to make their income. This is why it rubs me the wrong way when creators complain that they might have to help a customer that broke their product. As if they don't routinely rely on other peoples kindness at all.

Kindness is not something you can force on people. It would be totalitarian to make kindness law. I will never advocate to deny a persons right to be a jerk. I'll still say that making general consumer goods like clothes and furniture no-mod is jerkish behaviour and deserves to be called such.

 

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

I will never advocate to deny a persons right to be a jerk.

Call them what you will...but they created it so their decision about how to sell it is their right.

[Extrude Ragu]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

Call them what you will...but they created it so their decision about how to sell it is their right.

That is not what this thread is about though

[Luna Bliss]

3 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

That is not what this thread is about though

The thread title is "What justification is there for no mod permissions", and so I'm saying there IS justification if a creator wants to sell their creation as no-mod.  I'm not saying I think it's the right thing to do always, and I believe it depends on what they're selling, but it is justified to sell it as no-mod if that's what they desire.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

There's maybe more heat than light in this thread.

I don't think anyone who is in the "pro-mod" camp has suggested organized boycotts of creators, protest pickets, or lobbying LL to get red of "no mod" as an option. And any vituperative language launched, perhaps unwisely, against creators who insist on "no-mod" perms has to some degree been sponsored by statements that seem to foreground a pretty arrogant attitude towards consumers.

As I take it, there are at core two essential points that have been made by those who value work with mod perms.

1) Some of us choose not to buy no-mod items. That is our right as consumers, just as it is a creator's undeniable right to set perms on the objects they create. This seems to me pretty simple: unless you've got a really good reason to set something as no-mod, you are losing business from some of us who don't want such items. It's for you, the creator, to decide how gravely that impacts upon your sales, and/or whether such an impact is outweighed by your desire to ensure that no one re-tints the sofa you've made.

2) The tendency towards no-mod items can be seen in the context of the larger shift of SL away from a "creative" platform towards one that is more heavily about consumers and consumption. I am grateful to those, such as @Qie Niangao, who've made this point, because I hadn't contextualized the discussion that way before: I think this is correct. And I think it is regrettable.

My own experience of the latter phenomenon is particularly evident in the field of SL photography; there are a number of popular creators of photography backdrops, sometimes sold as no-mod, and occasionally with associated poses specifically made for that backdrop. These are often quite nice looking, and they're easy to use: plop them down, use one of the associated poses or another, and voila! Instant picture! But the result is that a great deal of SL photography, particularly that produced by the less ambitious or creative bloggers, is very samey-looking. Which, fine, I suppose . . . but I do think that essentially ceding all creativity to the makers of such backdrops works to impoverish SL as a whole, and certainly renders vast swathes of my Flickr feed an uncreative wasteland.

As a creator, one might not care all that much about the slow but inexorable drive to make SL a sterile and rather dull place -- so long as you're still selling items.

But I don't think it's a bad thing, or "insulting," to highlight one of the ramifications of one's decision to throttle the creative potential of the platform. You be you, by all means -- but at least be aware of the consequences to which you are contributing.

[Extrude Ragu]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

The thread title is "What justification is there for no mod permissions", and so I'm saying there IS justification if a creator wants to sell their creation as no-mod.  I'm not saying I think it's the right thing to do always, and I believe it depends on what they're selling, but it is justified to sell it as no-mod if that's what they desire.

Generally speaking the word 'justified' implies morality, rather than rights. For example, just because someone has the right to waste food, doesn't mean they are justified  in doing so.

[Luna Bliss]

Just now, Extrude Ragu said:

4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

The thread title is "What justification is there for no mod permissions", and so I'm saying there IS justification if a creator wants to sell their creation as no-mod.  I'm not saying I think it's the right thing to do always, and I believe it depends on what they're selling, but it is justified to sell it as no-mod if that's what they desire.

Generally speaking the word 'justified' implies morality, rather than rights. For example, just because someone has the right to waste food, doesn't mean they are justified  in doing so.

Then why are creators being demonized, by many, and even called jerks (by you), if they sell no-mod?  That's a bit of moralizing isn't it?

[Extrude Ragu]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

Then why are creators being demonized, by many, and even called jerks (by you), if they sell no-mod?  That's a bit of moralizing isn't it?

That's the point. The thread is a discussion of the morality of selling no mod items. The title of the thread implies a discussion of morality.

I'm saying, no, 90% of the time in my opinion, it is not moral but rather comes from a selfish place.

[Luna Bliss]

6 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I

/me draws a mustache on one of your art portraits and passes it to a friend to be displayed in a prominent place....LOL    ;0

[Lysistrata Szapira]

This discussion is funny. If I buy an expensive car in RL, I can modify it any way I like. If I buy a Armani Prive gown, I can modify it any way I like it (ala Cruella in the movie with the red dress).   My modifications could make the car or the dress look like absolute crap, but Toyota and Armani Prive won't say a word about it.  It's only in SL where designers can get their knickers in a twist if someone tinkers with the Grand Creations (tm) so they absolutely MUST make it no mod or their artistry is destroyed. /s

Maybe Elon Musk would love to make his cars no-mod, but there's really nothing he can do, thank goodness. I keep waiting for some creative paint jobs on the Cybertruck. 

Sometimes it's as simple as wanting to tint a face on a belt on a dress or pants when they only offer brown, white, or black, but NO! I can't do that because reasons. 

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Extrude Ragu said:

That's the point. The thread is a discussion of the morality of selling no mod items. The title of the thread implies a discussion of morality.

I'm saying, no, 90% of the time in my opinion, it is not moral but rather comes from a selfish place.

Maybe you are the 'immoral' or 'selfish' person, demanding everything be just your own special little way...

[Luna Bliss]

Just now, Lysistrata Szapira said:

This discussion is funny. If I buy an expensive car in RL, I can modify it any way I like.

Is SL reality the same as the reality outside it?  No, bad comparison, apples to oranges.

[Extrude Ragu]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

Maybe you are the 'immoral' or 'selfish' person, demanding everything be just your own special little way...

Maybe, but that's not what this thread is about

[Luna Bliss]

/me heads back to her nature park, hoping another customer/visitor doesn't drop by again to inform her that the water she chose for the park is 'too blue'.  tata

[Lysistrata Szapira]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

Is SL reality the same as the reality outside it?  No, bad comparison, apples to oranges.

I don't expect SL to replicate RL or I would report every babygirl who runs around with her pubic hair hanging out at G-rated events. 

I just find it ridiculous that people are so infatuated with themselves in SL that they get offended at people doing things with their stuff after they OWN it. 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

/me draws a mustache on one of your art portraits and passes it to a friend to be displayed in a prominent place....LOL    ;0

Seriously, though -- if I could find a way to make my 2D art more engaging, interactive, and collaborative, I would happily do so.

As for "defacing" my art, Maddy has been doing that in fun and interesting ways for YEARS. And I appreciate her creativity (and sense of humour)!

[Zalificent Corvinus]

5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

/me heads back to her nature park, hoping another customer/visitor doesn't drop by again to inform her that the water she chose for the park is 'too blue'.  tata

Bad news.

In SL we can choose our OWN sky and water presets, or even, *gasp* customise one, and we don't have to put up with whatever you chose.

 

[Extrude Ragu]

Quote

heads back to her nature park, hoping another customer/visitor doesn't drop by again to inform her that the water she chose for the park is 'too blue'.

The morality of deciding on behalf of a customer what shade of blue they are allowed in the region they pay for is certainly on topic for discussion 🤭