Codex Alpha

Why?

Good stuff. Please comment as you edit that also on Using a product intended to be one thing ; a house, a machine, a car... but users want access to unlink and use them as building sets, or as part of 'derivative works' that they may put their own name on. Surely this is not really what the creator intended, and the cost of allowing modify that shouldn't always include that ability. Funny example. Creator puts out art on a frame, selling it as art.. but its purchased for the frame Yes it happens haha. But was it supposed to be sold as an art piece for a wall, or as a customizable frame product? 2 end uses, and 2 prices might be asked. End use affects the end price for the consumer. No-mods can be cheaper than mod items, especially if people do above. "The creators vision": there is merit to this and should be some respect for this, regardless. Then practical. Modify is nice, but not always necessary - and the custom textures will just override and ruin it anyway, especially for tiling vs baked, and more advanced texture methods. Most users only have ability to apply textures (even PBR) one way.. as the underlying UV determines. I'm not whole or fast on the points I made, I'm making them for discussion, and to find my own way in the future on these matters.

If I were to describe my experience on SL forums would be quite simple "They dog pile on you", because it's accurate.

It's not rocket science. TOS says nothing about what defines a child avatar, but how it is used. If a child avatar is used to fool or solicit sexual based interactions from another minor on the service, or being used in sexual acts... then it's bannable. Child avatars are not a bannable offense, it's how someone is using them as always.

Similar to how buying land from LL and running your sim, you could consider the same usage of assets that are available through the SL MP, which can be crazy affordable in many cases. You don't own the computer and server that your sim runs on, but you are granted all other controls of that asset. You are also in conflict of the agreement you entered into every time you sign in with the Viewer. Your battle is not with me or creators, but the Terms of Service and licenses and expected end use through permissions systems created by LL itself.

Child avatars are not the problem in SL, and you should not get banned just because of it. The TOS shows the context: If you are not doing this, there should be no problem. I don't think someone warping in and de-rendering your clothes and reporting you would or should be grounds for immediate ban.

And I stand by... We don't have to agree, but at least understand where each other is coming from.

One can win writing contests and speech contests, and still be 'misunderstood'. It's the listener's ability at times to not only 1) read the content but to 2) Comprehend the content and then 3) formulate a rational response which can come into question. This is why vocabulary is so important for all of us. They are the colors we use to paint imagery in each other's minds,to communicate ideas and opinions. If someone doesn't know what a word is, or has limited vocabulary - they'll 'misunderstand' all day. This means 'being understood' isn't necessarily on one side or the other, it's probably more important how the receiver processes it

I, nor any other creator that has posted on this topic, when it comes up every 6 months or so - have ever had or promoted that position. I asked a question. When people argue some unique use cases as to why all my products should be modifiable (Not sure everyone agrees as to WHAT should be), it kind of conflicts against my general opinion about 'no mod' which is: "It's nice to have, for sure, but it's not necessary". I've also given many use cases as to why a creator would want to no-mod an item, with supporting statements. The response is nasty accusations and assumptions of conceit, greed and whatever else. To be clear, I'm ALL FOR giving the end user as much customizability as possible, but only as long as it doesn't conflict with my intentions and end-use intentions for the product that I would make. It doesn't seem that in this topic, that either 'side' has come to an agreement that would make all parties happy. I'd be happy to simply control unlinking or not.. and I don't like my product name changed, or linked to another object with another creator's name on it - SL never said that my products could be derived from (which is IMVU's model) How is it anti-consumer? With some of the statements and views and accusations so far, I could maybe claim that demanding full access to products, and trying to shame, boycott or punish in any way creators who do so as 'anti-creator'. It seems so far that at the core of this is really ideological differences, more than practical - which LL could solve itself by changing how access to products work. Protecting vital parts or construction of parts, while allowing customization of features that a MAJORITY of users will want to have access to. Most arguments for mod here are made by super-users, land owners, and those who seem to think they can fix and improve a product without the creator being involved...

The very nature of a person attacking another, mainly with accusations as to their motivations, outright misrepresentation of their position, even complete misquotes or what we can call it: "lies" and "bearing false witness" - is meant to put the target on defense and derail them from the argument they're making. In most cases, there's no point responding to the accusations, and if it bothers oneself then one would just self-assess to see why one was upset about the accusation - and if there is any truth to it: adjust. If not: discard. Sometimes I can get suckered in, thinking that if I explain something another way, or use another analogy - that they will understand my position, even if they disagree. But this is rare around here, on the internet and in the world in general right now. So all one can do is their best to remain nice, forgive people and maybe not hang around them so much anymore.

Ok.. so how many people like you are there in Second Life doing this? This would be a rare activity, I would think. Does the average SL'er need to do this?

In short, keep it civil, assume the best of the other speaker, and assume others do things in 'good faith'. I see way too many accusatory responses, misrepresenting someone else's position, and probably the worst of all: People respond without fully reading the post, and/or react to a single word or phrase used, and the conversation is derailed. This is not a court of law, this is not an essay submission, it's a chat and discussion area, give people a break.

I still think you may be viewing this issue through an Advanced User or Creator goggles. Similar to being a musician performing for musicians - that is never as fun as of course they can notice all the mistakes, and can be quite harsh and critical (and perhaps rightfully so more demanding of a higher skill). Meanwhile, the MASSES, the average user, concert attender just enjoys the show... In short.. no-mod is a deal breaker to a certain group, not all groups. I have plenty of no-mod purchases, and purchase no-mod items - because I buy them as they are presented. I don't think any creator in this topic has made the claim that it makes them more money, but rather stating reasons why they make some things no-mod - wrong/ignorant or not in doing so. In a way I'm not worried about my sales. I have had no-mod objects that sell quite well, and I'm not about to go back and 'fix' them now, I can go forward now with new strategies taking 2024 concerns. For me, any lack of sales were most likely do to making low-demand items, the quality not being up to par ( i frequently study, learn from and admire other creator's works), and not having a mass library. Not concerned about no-mod at all. I'll no-mod appropriate items - and leave it up to SL staff to provide an interface for customization, and most of my objects are mod anyway.

creators may believe they're making more money with No-Mod Personally money has nothing to do with my decision on the matter. I just want (a) product to remain intact as is - even at the same time wanting to give the end user the most access possible. it's usually that the stuff is just useless for our purposes without Mod permission. I would suggest that these needs could be filled by appropriate building kits specifically provided by a creator for that end use. I as a creator can provide a single product that is made up of similar pieces - like a house, machine or car - but have no intent to provide it as a parts kit (hence no-mod). If that no-mod blocks other functionality, like tinting, re-texturing, etc, I think people should talk to SL about that - or they can kindly contact the creator (as some have me) to get a custom if possible.

Really? I thought it was about being able to fund my creative pursuits in SL and having the sales fund that so I can make more stuff, and if I'm lucky help to keep paying for the Premium account, software subs and replacements, computer parts and maybe the occasional coffee to help me continue. As I had said earlier, this more appears to be an idealogical movement promoting social change, rather than a good faith discussion on how SL can support both creator's needs while still giving users ability to customize their purchases at the same time. At the end of the day, I live in a society with high living costs and I have to eat, or I die. So anything I produce - be it creative or not - has to help pay my bills.... or I'm homeless and soon sick and dead. So I would suggest that users like you would seek out building kits that allow you to do that, that will all be separate and fully modifiable - and at an appropriate 'end use' price, vs buying a premade 'barn and fenced yard' and demanding mod ability to unlink it and use it as a building kit - which would probably be priced pretty affordably due to it's 'grab and plop' nature - which has it's own market in itself, as we may see in a Sims type platform or other. SL has both abilities. As i posted earlier - the end use of something does determine different prices - whether you like it or not. I understand why people want to do this, but it seems people are making more idealogical arguments than FAIR ones - that could consider accounting for people needing to fund their efforts... Yes, and for some creators - many of us who did not start off as pros, self-taught, put in the hours to learn and make stuff, with all the quirks and challenges and workarounds that SL requires - we may make decisions based on that. And yes, I see all my work as 'art', some are more art pieces than others, others are just utility common boring pieces - but I really want to focus on making building sets, and compositional pieces - and trying to find my way to providing those in a fair manner - but not giving away stuff for free - nor do I like to feel taken advantage of, as that discourages me from doing anything more on this platform. Seriously, I hope consumers and creators get the best of both worlds, but I think this really falls to SL staff as how they would like to proceed.