Anaiya Ahren

Sorry for this pointless post; just hit reply to log in and agree to the TOS and for some reason it posted an empty post when I hit cancel....... I didn't even realize until I was re-reading the thread and saw it sitting at the top of page 2.

Yes but it doesn't matter. If someone is going to share the model after buying, does it matter if they do that by sending the password rather than emailing the model or uploading the model to the same file sharing site and giving out the link and password to their version of it?

I just logged into a message from a lovely customer who informed me that she has been spammed by multiple deliveries of an item she bought in my store. She got sent 6 copies over night. My transaction records do not show any extra deliveries and the customer does not seem to have been recharged but I am sure no one expects buying a simple item on the marketplace is inviting it to spam them with with half a dozen or so copies (at last count, she might have received more since she messaged me). I've submitted a ticket through the system but I thought I'd let the rest of you know in case there are similar issues with any of your products (not that there is much you can do about it I suppose other than lodge a support case ticket if a customer contacts you to say they are being getting spammed with your product).

I just logged into a message from a lovely customer who informed me that she has been spammed by multiple deliveries of an item she bought in my store. She got sent 6 copies over night. My transaction records do not show any extra deliveries and the customer does not seem to have been recharged but I am sure no one expects buying a simple item on the marketplace is inviting it to spam them with with half a dozen or so copies (at last count, she might have received more since she messaged me). I've submitted a ticket through the system but I thought I'd let the rest of you know in case there are similar issues with any of your products (not that there is much you can do about it I suppose other than lodge a support case ticket if a customer contacts you to say they are being getting spammed with your product).

"White canvas" have a full perm top for 0 lindens (untextured but perfectly fine for having a little play with) that they very generously made available when fitmesh was still being tested and only usable through a project viewer. I just checked and it's still on the marketplace now for those who want to have a bit of a play around. The alpha/transparencies will still be needed. The mesh does deform but it doesn't necessarily conform. Marianne Little has it totally right: always demo the demo. They are your passport to non-disappointing purchases. As for third party viewers, I have heard that singularity already works with the fitmesh in group chat, but I have not checked it out myself.

Is it ok? I have never felt a need to do so but whether it's ok is really subjective. I think if you are polite and readily and cheerfully take no for an answer if it turns out that way, reasonable people probably won't be too upset with you even if they are little taken aback or perhaps uncomfortable about it. For customers the review feature is there to give them a place to record their experience of buying that product from you and as a potential source of information about items they might want to buy. I don't see why they would be expected or obliged to treat it as anything else. For me it's a source of information about my products and/or customer service and the customer doesn't even owe me that much. It might have bonus marketing value if the review is positive but that's a secondary effect of the review serving customers as a source of information, not the primary purpose. Other customers are owed accurate information before I am owed free marketing because it's there to provide them with information; that's the point of it. Yes, it is up to the customer if they bother to take the time to give any feedback and the only obligation I feel they have is to not lie or comment in deliberately bad faith. If the review honestly relays their experience of the product and shopping in my store, then it's more than I am entitled to and more than is required of the customer.

BarcodeBrian wrote: Excerpt from letter: [...] focus For me, one of the most incredible aspects of SL is that people with very little graphic design knowledge have the opportunity to express their creative vision. an approach to address the concerns [...] without reverting to the prior wording. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ And there is the problem. 100% Because by "wording" I don't think they mean they "wording". I think they mean meaning. I don't care what words they use so they long as they return the limitation they took out. As to the wording of their letter: "on whether there may be". No empty assurance that they are looking into solutions or looking for solutions; they won't even assert that there is a way to approach this. There may be one, they''ll look into that, although they make no claim that they are interested in implementing that approach if it's found. So they are not looking coming up with a solution, or even looking for one. Their focus is on the possibility of the existence of an approach, although they make no claims they intend to take it if they find it. Oh and they won't be putting back the words whose only purpose was to limit LL to only be allowed to do anything and everything they needed to do with my content. If they just want to help me voluntarily exploit my content on Desura then they don't need a TOS that gives them the right to do it involuntarily. It's astounding that they are claiming this is about standardizing the TOS agreement boilerplate across services but have not immediately backed down when the show stopper implications were pointed out to them. They are going through with that to standarize some forms? And what a way to go about standardizing forms. I have entered many contracts governed by a standardized contract and in every case they were constructed for specificity of the use case. If I sign a standarized contract to have my lawns mowed, I don't agree to the provider being allowed to throw a **bleep**-tail party at my home, any time they like, inviting whoever they want and putting on whatever entertainment they think best without recourse on my part, because it just so happens that the same company also owns a a business that arranges "full package" party deals.

Dresden Ceriano wrote: For me, one of the most incredible aspects of SL is that people with very little graphic design knowledge have the opportunity to express their creative vision. Exactly. Compartmentalizing makes content creation much more accessible and enables people to build skills and confidence and get finished results they can feel satisfied with and inspired to learn more by much faster than if everyone had to do everything from scratch themselves to get a finished item.

walterwhiteSr wrote: I also hear from long time SL people, that it is offense to them if a friend turns off their online status, that is a serious breech of SL etiquette. Personally I don't agree, I have several friends that when I am with them, (non romantic), I don't want to be disturbed and want to focus my attention on them and what is being discussed, learned or whatever. In fact a long time SL person got so upset, it influenced them in an important business decision, which really had nothing to do with only line status. In fact, if I choose to only allow a few close friends to know my online status, the proper ettiquette in RL is, that is my business and if I decide to include you or not include you in that list, so be it. Some people don't like it if you hide your online status from them. If you hide your status from time to time, they might not be SL compatable with you. Do people who are not habitual drama mongers get offended because someone's privacy settings don't reveal enough information about them? I don't know; it's conceivable I suppose.

Dresden Ceriano wrote: Anaiya Ahren wrote: Reasonable person: "So what did you do with your life? " Resident Troll: "I trolled SL forums? Am I clever or what?" Reasonable person: "Or what." I fail to understand the point you're trying to make with this post. I'm sure most people who actually troll this forum wouldn't count that activity as being the crowning achievement of their life. I'm sure anyone who managed to chew through every unique last name LL ever implemented wouldn't have any time to achieve anything else.

That's a bit of a blunt instrument. The kind of scams Marianne is talking about have 2 easier solutions. The first obvious solution is to look in the box. Always check the content's tab if the item is DD and unboxed (although obviously people can box stuff first so all you see is a box or put liar names on items that appear to be more or less what you think you are buying). But the real crux of these scams is to use high quality images and recognizable brand names. So you have the brand name right there in the advert and it's high profile. Go in world and do a search and you will find the brand owner and creator name associated with the real ower of the brand and associated IP. If that name doesn't match the marketplace seller you're probably looking at a scam. You can always confirm this by contacting the real brand owner of course and they might appreciate the heads up about this scam being pulled on their brand name.

Did you know that in order to access the "cancel subscription" page so you cancel your premium subscription, that you have to agree to any TOS changes that occured since the last time you accessed your account?

Reasonable person: "So what did you do with your life? " Resident Troll: "I trolled SL forums? Am I clever or what?" Reasonable person: "Or what."

Wow! I am beyond astounded. I know this is LL, but wow, just wow. Where's their head at? Really, what part of SL's history didn't make it overwhelmingly obvous that "if you implement it, they will wear it". What don't people wear in SL? Even scripts and particles find their way into wearables. This makes less sense than thinking we would not wear scultpies which makes less sense than thinking we would not wear original prims. It might be marginally less senseless than thinking we wouldn't wear textures. What are they thinking? Do they not understand that people want to wear stuff? If it can somehow be attached to the avatar, people are going to want to wear the bleep out of that.