Test Delivery Next Owner Permissions don't actually work as advertised

[Sera Lok]

Please watch/vote this JIRA, as the "Next Owner Permissions" for items for test delivery doesn't really work as advertised.

https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/WEB-4554

[Ilyra Chardin]

Question -the way you did this for DD is the way you have always done this for MP products? (for each item did you go to contents and set he permissions and then do it again when you boxed them ?  or did you just set next owner permissions on the box?)  

I'm trying to understand if you’re saying that DD somehow undid the perms that you had set and this would have worked using magic boxes with market place.

[Sera Lok]

Heya, no, they didn't mess up the perms, but in the Torley video, it touts that you can check next-owner permissions using Test Delivery (a new feature), but it doesn't actually work that way., it will ONLY work for items that are in a folder and are not objects containing objects/scripts/animations/etc inside the contents.

[Sera Lok]

check out

starting at 3:56  TIP: "Test Delivery" permissions

 

"Exactly how a customer would receive it"... not quite ^^

 

[Arwen Serpente]

Hi Sera, I have to add my pov on this "next owner permissions" being applied to a creator's own work...it's not something that I want at all. To have the system automatically change the permissions on something that I made for the sake of a test delivery is potentially dangerous (in my opinion). SL has had glitches with permissions (items going full perm) over the years. What if the system changes what we've (as creators) intended by accident (in some way or other...it happens, there's plenty of history on this)? In addition, let's say that an item disappears from your inventory - in the past, the magic box was always a good fall back for storage (a creator could retrieve an item from there or order from the MP and work with it again) - now what if the only backup that's available is the product that was sent to the MP? Order the item from the MP and work with it (as usual). Now, if next owner permissions are applied to our own creations, that wouldn't be possible.

For me, the purpose of "test delivery" is to test the delivery mechanism, not the permissions on the item. Checking permissions is something creators need to do before ever putting something up for sale.

Just my thoughts...

[Sera Lok]

Arwen, I agree with a lot of what you have said, but somehow LL thought this was awesome... so perhaps file a JIRA requesting that this "feature" be taken away.  I would support it.

I have been very comfortable using alts to test permissions and have done this for years... I see this as the only true way to check permissions.

But as the feature is implemented currently, it certainly does not work as they say it does, but that is a different issue from you are getting at.

[Arwen Serpente]

I just tested it. So, the box is delivered with next owner permissions. Then I rez the box. The contents are still my original permissions and I can work with them. Then, I take the box which is now "no mod/no transfer" back into inventory -- I get it back as full permission. That's a problem. Imagine if that happens for a customer? They rez the item and then take it back and get it back as full perm? nope, this does not work for me.

 

[Arwen Serpente]

I just read your JIRA and see that you experienced the same thing that I did.

I believe that the JIRA supports this feature but points out that it does not work correctly.

I hate to create another JIRA to say get rid of the feature, lol. I really don't think this feature is a good one at all, but have JIRAs "battling" with each other isn't very productive either.

All I want from that test delivery function is to test the delivery. Not the permissions. That's just a whole other ball of wax.

[Sera Lok]

I agree, this just may not be a good idea - they are taking in surveys now, if you look in the sticky thread about Direct Delivery launch. I am noting our concerns and linking to this thread and the JIRA I made.

[Arwen Serpente]

I'm right there with you Sera. Just doing the survey now as well.

[Sera Lok]

it's occurred to me that since there will be no central place directly accessible to the merchant, that the test delivery could also serve as a handy "send me a copy of my marketplace item" when someone needs to change/update their item contents, which would require owner permissions to be intact.  The "next owner permissions" thing kinda screws that up.

 

eta: apparently I sometimes just repeat what's already been said^^ heh

[Darrius Gothly]

There is a very simple reason this works as it does .. and hopefully this will make sense.

When MP delivers an item to you as a test, the permissions system does the "Check Permissions" routine but only on the items being delivered. Thus it only changes the outside wrapper box to "Next Owner" But since the box has not been opened and the items inside have not actually been delivered or transferred, there is no Permissions Check .. yet.

When you or anyone else OPENS the box however, now those inner items are exposed, their ownership transfers and the Permissions Check is run on them .. at that time. But remember, until you expose those inner items, their permissions are not check nor are they converted to Next Owner.

You can accomplish the same thing. Box up some items and give the box to your Alt. Then have the Alt give the box back to you. You will see the Box is now set for Next Owner permissions. However, when you Open the box and those items are exposed, it finds the "transfer" is right  back to the Creator/Original owner so it leaves them set for "First Owner" (or Creator) permisssions.

Since there weren't exposed while the Alt owned the box, they won't have been checked or changed. But if the Alt opens the box, they WILL get exposed and "transferred" .. and thus Next Owner Permissions will attach.

So, in summary ... it's working exactly to spec. Torley was right, but only insofar as the outside items will be set with "Next Owner" permissions. Any stuff inside a wrapper will not be changed until you open the box.

[Sera Lok]

Darrius, you should know it makes sense to me because I've been selling objects for years And you may remember that I'm quite... well.. let's be honest... (it bleeped me... I meant.... detail oriented, not aannalll. heh) about things.. LOL

I agree that it's working "as expected," like when you give to an alt but never rez, etc. Lots of more experienced users understand this, but newer users will not. What I'm saying is, it's not working as advertised in the video.

In the video Torley says "this will deliver exactly as the customer will receive it." Perhaps I'm being nit-picky, but this is NOT true - once you rez the item, it's not 'exactly as received.' So I don't know that even having this "feature" is a good idea, seeing as how it is NOT a sure-fire way to test next-owner permissions on Objects or Items Within Objects, so why even say that it is, in a video that lots of people will see, if it doesn't actually work that way? This may work correctly for items that are textures, clothing items, etc, but NOT objects. Because there is this discrepancy, I don't think it's appropriate that it be communicated as "exactly how the next owner will see it."

You are going to have people rezzing and picking items back up, or opening boxes' contents, then seeing that now that they have picked the items back up or opened the box they are owner perms, and thinking it goes to the customer that way. It's going to create lots of misunderstandings and confusion, much like the existing current permissions system in which people think that because they set an object to "no copy" it sets all the contents inside to "no copy" as well.

Add that to the fact that the way the current merchant outbox works, there is no way to get a copy back of your items once they are uploaded except through "test delivery," once the item is associated. What if I want to grab a backup copy from Marketplace, and I sell no mod textures or scripts in a folder? Well, there is just no way, those items are now strictly whatever permissions I set on them (unlike objects which you can rez and take back). Granted, Marketplace shouldn't be used as storage, but it's another point in the matter.

[Arwen Serpente]

I agree.

The return of test deliveries for Merchants is great. But just to test the delivery mechanism. Anything that messes with permissions (or "perceived" permissions) is going to lead to confusion.

[Darrius Gothly]

I totally agree with you that Torley's statement (to the effect of "exactly like the customer receives it") is prone to misinterpretation. Technically he's right, but functionally he's off-base.

Considering that the mindset around LL is that everyone will unbox and deliver only folders, I can understand why Torley makes that statement too. When a folder is delivered by DD, you will receive the contents of the folder with Next Owner permissions, just like a customer would. So in that context, he can be forgiven for going a bit overboard.

Maybe we can get him to add a disclaimer to the effect of "... for unboxed products only"?

Torley? What about it? Can you tweak that section just a wee bit please?

[Sera Lok]

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

I totally agree with you that Torley's statement (to the effect of "exactly like the customer receives it") is prone to misinterpretation. Technically he's right, but functionally he's off-base.

Considering that the mindset around LL is that everyone will unbox and deliver only folders, I can understand why Torley makes that statement too. When a folder is delivered by DD, you will receive the contents of the folder with Next Owner permissions, just like a customer would. So in that context, he can be forgiven for going a bit overboard.

Maybe we can get him to add a disclaimer to the effect of "... for unboxed products only"?

Torley? What about it? Can you tweak that section just a wee bit please?

---

But the problem is, even if you deliver in folders, if the item is an object, then it won't be next owner permissions once you rez the item, and neither will any of that object's contents. That is why I'm thinking that even though this is really cool in theory... that it might just be something that creates more confusion and misunderstanding than it is worth.

To add a disclaimer to the video now would be great!  "for unboxed products only" is not sufficient, because if that unboxed product is an object, it remains misleading.  I feel like I'm being overly nitpicky about this, but I can guarantee you people are freaking out right now because they believe their objects are being transferred with owner perms and that "LL has screwed it up again."

[Sera Lok]

oh, and just to add, I'm not blaming Torley!!! lol. I love that guy and his DD videos (and many of his others) have helped me a LOT.

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Sera Lok wrote:

To add a disclaimer to the video now would be great!  "for unboxed products only" is not sufficient, because if that unboxed product is an object, it remains misleading.  I feel like I'm being overly nitpicky about this, but I can guarantee you people are freaking out right now because they believe their objects are being transferred with owner perms and that "LL has screwed it up again."

---

Not overly picky .. strictly. Permissions are one of those places where folks have the highest "panty in a wad" incidents .. usually unwarranted too. I can even agree (on further thinking) that a simple disclaimer won't do it. I've been trying to come up with a way to restate it that doesn't lead to confusion, and there's no simple language that will cover all the possibilities.

Did you make a JIRA about this yet? (I'm gonna scan up after I post this, so if you did, I'll catch it on re-read)

What if he changes it to "With the contents arranged in folders or boxes exactly as your customer will receive it"? That at least excludes the permissions Catch-22.