Anaiya Ahren

Unless I misunderstand the mechanics of what you're asking (I got a bit lost and confused as I read the thread), not at all. The issue is the creator wants people to buy ,(along with the license), the means of generating transferable copies of that object, from them exclusively. The purpose of the rules is basically to prevent a buyer of the full perm sculpty texture/license from doing anything with the texture that can result in someone else (who didn't buy the license/texture) being able to make transferable copies of the sculpty prim. So in this proposed use, the players would end up with the sculpty with transfer and copy enabled, so they can make copies they can transfer to others? If they can generate transferable copies that will break the rules of the license. Well you can't let the system owner have copy+trans sculpts that are licensed with rules like this, But I think (unless I overlooked something), if you can tolerate a bit more "end user" set up, you can do what you want if you have the owner rezz 2 different "object givers" - 1 that you created and have set the permissions on and is ready to go when rezzed - it can be no trans with copy perm and gives objects to the game system owner only. The other would be created by the game system owner who would have to set the next owner perms to either no copy or no trans (whichever you decide and then specify in your instructions and script) - because they still own the giver, it will copy and transfer items to the other players despite the "next owner" settings - for compliance with the sculpt texture license the scuplty texture needs to be not applied while the game owner can still change the permissions - but as soon as the item transfers to another player, the new owner permissions kick in and you can have your script check they're correct (and only if the permissions are still the way they're supposed to be,) then, apply the UUID to make the object into the desired sculpty. During game operation, the owner would get their objects from the giver you provided - since only the owner needs to take these objects, that one can be set by you as copy/no-trans meeting the license terms. The players would get their objects from the owner rezzed giver that the owner created, but the UUID would only be applied if the object had been transferred to the player and with the correct permissions, so again the license terms are upheld and no one ends up with a sculpty they can both copy and transfer. You could build in a few checks as layers of security to make sure your script can't apply UUIDS when either the owner of the object is the creator, or the permissions are not set correctly - you might even want it to have it check in with another script in the system by sending a query and getting a response before it activates the sculpty texture application so it can only work when the game system is near by and operating a game - that should prevent any shenanigans. It's a little bit more set up for the game owner, but it's still significantly less complicated to set up and get onto playing than wearing and saving a new outfit to my avatar's wardrobe usually is. Unless I've overlooked something, this should allow players to get their objects while keeping it all compliant with the typical licensing terms for sculpty texture.

Must you use the "built in" texture animation? I usually just manually set my texture scaling then "animate" the texture by explicitly telling my script to display each frame (because just like your texture here, I usually I have other stuff on the texture that isn't part of a specific animation sequence I want to display). For example: float offset2 = 0.75; float offset1 = 0.25; integer looping = 1; default { on_rez(integer start_param) { llResetScript(); } state_entry() { do { { llOffsetTexture( (float) offset2, (float) offset1, ALL_SIDES); } llSleep(.5); { llOffsetTexture( (float) offset2, (float) offset2, ALL_SIDES);} llSleep(2.0); } while (looping == 1); You can add as many frames to your sequence as you like (this one is to make a pic look like it winks, hence why it has so few frames).

https://gpm.nasa.gov/image-use-policy

My advice is start someplace/any place on mainland, (like here if you're at a complete loss for a start place: http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Cyalore/40/178/53) then open the world map (make sure the option to display land for sale is selected) and just teleport or even fly about using the world mp to show you what's for sale. You can zoom the map out to look for features like water then use the map to direct tp to look around for likely parcels. Don't forget if land is abandoned, you can commonly buy it for 1 linden per square meter, especially if you already own a a parcel bordering the abandoned land, so if you see a too small parcel surrounded by abandoned land, you can probably buy as much of the abandoned land to as you need to expand the parcel to the size you want.

That gown uses the original clothing system (BOM when applied to a mesh body) for the upper body/torso and it has a flexi prim skirt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSZt0yObxKw&t=2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3BzKthAfF4

I'm watching the preview of July's Maniology subscription box which I luckily don't have to hear because my hubby is in the next room catching up on Umbrella Academy episodes he slept through and apparently he's going deaf.

I had no idea this was possible - thank you!

Obviously not since that was in the early 1800s.

My big problem with mainland is linden trees. Most of them are ugly, far too many of them ruin parcels I'd otherwise be interested in by blocking the view, and they can't be de-rendered which to me is the difference between mildly annoying and a deal breaker.

I collected the reward for that a couple of weeks ago on my other account which is premium but which I've never purchased lindens with. You're right about the signs though because I was wondering when I was doing the quest if it would redeem since I knew I'd never purchased lindens on the account. Oh, and something has happened to my trading limits even though they're still at 0 because I used to be "New Resident 1" and that's changed to "New Resident 2" now, whatever that means. Perhaps that means it's on the 30 day wait period Alwin mentioned. I really wish this was all just clearly explained on the trading limits dashboard page. Thanks for your input.

Where I live it is - if you advertise a benefit of a product, you can't hide conditions on that in a separate ToS document. I do not believe any government in the world require Tilia to make someone buy lindens to be allowed to sell lindens. That's absurd. It's a completely arbitrary requirement - I don't believe it has anything at all to do with government regulatory requirements.

Wow. if that's the case, then that's disgusting. I've found nothing that states buying lindens is required to sell lindens, they advertise the ability to sell lindens in plenty of places but this restriction is not mentioned anywhere I've seen. The minimum buy for lindens is about 10 US dollars (my money is worth less than US dollars) and a fee I get charged for buying things in foreign currency so that's more like 20 dollars in my currency and I just paid for a month premium already which kind of stretched things for me actually. I actually feel like crying now. Where I come from this kind of bait and switch is illegal. Thanks for your help.

I'm sorry Alwin, I don't quite follow; are you saying that I can't sell any lindens unless I buy lindens, even if I have payment info used?

That's weird, I did just check my in-world profile and you're right - it says no payment info on file, but my mesh uploading status has updated, I just teleported into a gaming region...and now I've gone and paid for a month's premium with my semi-existent payment info. I'm going log out and back into everything and give it an hour to see if it updates my lindex limits but if not, I guess I'll have to capitulate and put a ticket in. I really wish there was just a button in the trading limit page you could click and have the system self check itself for consistency. If you can charge my card, it must be on file. Thanks for quote for ticket explanation box, I'll just cut and paste that across if I do have to do a ticket. I really wish there was a button to request the system "check my privilege(s)" for internal consistency and reconcile itself.

Thanks. Oh no, I have filled out most of a ticket then it wanted me to explain my reasons in a box so I tried like three times to explain myself and then gave up and just closed the window. I have not gone back yet. But also I'm not premium on this account; I want to sell some lindens to pay for premium. I added the payment information and thought the sell limit would update from 0 to higher than 0 if I waited 24 hours but that didn't happen. Maybe it will fix itself if I charge one month of premium to the card... Thanks for the suggestion.

Thanks. I've been through my dashboard (repeatedly) and I cant find anywhere to accept Tilia's T&C so perhaps I already did it- or I'm just really bad at finding it. Thanks for the suggestion though.

Oh, wow, now I feel sad. And a little in need of a Coke. Well it's worth a lot more to you than to me. 🤪

Who said I can't? There's no need to make things up. Why should I need to? How long will it take? What am I supposed to say in the stupid box that asks for reasons why? Didn't they invent an entire service to handle money payments and aren't charge backs a well established thing? Why would any business looking for a money handling service consider such an offering? "Raise a ticket, include a little essay listing reasons why, and then we'll consider it and get back to you, eventually (perhaps)" is a pretty hair-brained system in this day and age.

Oh wow, those avatars are laughable.

She obviously needs a Coke:

It kind of is a bad deal for probably most premium account holders considering they can get most of that for $3.08 extra per month by making an alt premium... I have never come near my group cap with my premium account so that's less benefit to me than spending $3.08 per month to get the premium group cap on another account that is running up against the basic account group-cap. I think that's kind of only useful for a small niche of the user-base (like if you've got a store in lots of events, or are a blogger or something) but if it's going to negatively impact group chat performance, is it really even a good idea for SL generally? So far as textures are concerned, I have a history of once having scripted a corset to texture switch 3 1024s in a constant loop , and they've since added a whole materials system - so the first thing I did with scripted mats was script a skirt and HUD system so customers could buy add-on texture HUDs that allowed them to put a different texture in every texture slot on each of three faces - yeah they can put 9 1024s on a single skirt, and I actually thought that was a good idea at the time - it's not even a long skirt - it barely covers my butt.... And having looked at mod perm items I've bought over the years, I'm not in even in the "worst offenders" category (seriously people do some mad things with textures). No one should want me anywhere free texture uploads. I don't want me near free texture uploads. And I'm not confident everyone that will buy premium plus should be allowed anywhere near free texture uploads either.

My exact thought alongside how long they made everyone wait. Nothing about Plus and its development suggests much pragmatism to me. I'd add on the fact that I have over 50k lindens and despite adding payment information, I'm not allowed to sell any of them which is a separate thing from cashing out. Apparently I'm supposed to raise a ticket? How does that make sense? They can't automate a customer initiated "charge back" so when you add payment info you can have them raise your linden selling tier without expensive human intervention? And they want to sell this tilia thing's services to other businesses? Who would pay them for this backward nonsense? Human intervention is the least convenient and most expensive way to check if payment information can be trusted in 2022. None of this is a good advertisement for money handling services, or a pragmatic way to run a business. A smart 12 year old could tell you that if you can issue tokens you make up out of thin air to customers who can sell them to US dollars to pay to you, that you make this as easy and convenient as possible. And don't get me started on the crazy tier for land above the premium allotment....in all these years no one in charge has had the sense to fix that? How about 6 dollars per 1024 a month if you pay annually as an add-on to when buying an annual premium subscription? Then they get all the money up front whether I even use the tier and customers are encouraged to buy premium annually to access the deal and annual premium subbers are offered an upsell. They're hosting mainland anyway - lot of abandoned land out there. I'm certainly not paying 4 US dollars a month for 512 - pragmatism isn't what this current (long-standing) pricing model brings to mind. It sure seems like no one with pragmatism, business acumen or even basic common sense is being allowed to steer this ship.

Well they have to host mainland whether it's abandoned or in resident hands and having content on that land adds value to LL's users and entices people to stay in-world compared to bland empty fields, and it costs them little more to host paid accounts compared to free accounts, so as the economy is putting the squeeze on discretionary spending for leisure, it makes a lot of sense to offer better deals to entice those who can afford a little more to hopefully make up likely income losses from the people who simply can't afford to keep spending their current LL budget as the economy tightens. I actually expected near double prices (maybe 5 dollars a year less) for double land/stipend or double prices for more than double land (say an extra 512ish) or something.

Everything's simple until they start looking at the costs in lost premium subscriptions.

Stacking premium accounts isn't broken, the strange charges for tier outside of the premium inclusion are what's broken. My point isn't "get rid of premium stacking" but that if the benefits don't exceed the benefits of 2 premium accounts (even perhaps by simply including unique "functional perks" or ongoing discounts...or something), or offer some price reduction (even a very small one) over two premium accounts, then I doubt there will be much market for it. I don't mind account stacking but if LL expect this to increase their income from this product, it seems they need to charge less than the full premium fee or give more benefits than 2 premium accounts obtain.