Codex Alpha

OMFG this topic is a hilarious example of how to get free advertising in for your products, under the guise of trying to find a fashion item. LMFAO. Oh well, it's just too funny now.

I understand the Bento avatar is basically a new set of extra bones. Is my current avatar (not changed from 2009) the same as the newer (2016) avatars provided for new signups? Are the new (2016) avatars Bento-skeletoned? If so, how would I go about updating my avatar to the new avatar skeleton, and is that even possible? Would be nice of course, for testing in the future, for updated animations. This new skeleton could affect any animations I may make for my products, would be nice to include finger animations, but right now I couldnt test with older avatar. Thanks

I decided to post this topic as a compilation of many posts regarding avatars in SL, how to make them, how to rig them, and specifically what one needs to work with Bento. Documentation that exists is severely outdated or not even relevant anymore and it is confusing for many. Where is the actual page that documents the SL Avatar and how to proceed step by step for new users? Thanks.

Considering that most of the lag is choking on all the huge textures to download when entering a sim, that has probably more to do with it, then your router.

Or if they are creators who cannot afford yet to maintain an inworld store with enough prims to feature all of their products, the least they can do is use the tools at their disposal to represent their product as accurately as possible. A merchant can utilize multiple images on their store page to show the product, inworld or otherwise, including inworld shots of LODs (if the issue becomes the mainstream concern). There is also an option to provide a video from a YouTube channel to further feature the product, possibly accompanied by a tutorial and showcasing it's visibility and use as well. It seems on the product I have been stung on featured only one image, or simply decided to purposefully obscure issues with the product, rather than just producing something of quality to begin with. But yes, if you can see it inworld, that is usually the best, especially for higher priced items.

Did you scale the Normal Map and/or Specular Map textures to match the Diffuse Texture scale? Did you upload a properly unwrapped UV, or upload the correct texture to match the UV?

Ask Linden Labs, by opening a support ticket. And don't keep clicking the button after you do it once

Chic Aeon wrote: Honestly I have had my LOD settings at 2 for over a year now and see most things very well. If the items are all from one creator then it could be the mesh, but there are plenty of GOOD mesh makers around so I am having a hard time believing it is just "bad LODs". As someone mentioned if you have zoomed in or out that will mess up the LODs that would otherwise be fine (I forget sometimes when I am taking fashion photos - not good). Ctrl + 9 will put your viewer zoom back to default. Also note that setting YOUR LODs up does nothing for anyone that is visiting . So while things might look lovely for you, they will likely not look good for those on closer to normal (default) settings. If things fall apart on regular (not zoom) view at 2, then you might want to look for some better mesh . PS. It doesn't need to be a gift to have bad LODs I am glad that you consistently post for creators to fix their LODs, and not to be promoting the average SL user to delve into debug settings in order to correct bad meshes. For pete's sake, I bought 2 meshes from an alleged 'top' maker in SL, and their LODs broke down very quickly, so much so one wouldn't even be able to take a screenshot at range without them turning into triangles. Great pictures, glossy advertisements, but inworld just a bunch of triangles. What makes it worse, the product has a notecard accompanying it that suggests tweaking the Debug Settings (this area is used by developers, not average users) in order to see the mesh.. What junk. I design at default SL Viewer setting (which appears to be 1.0) I'm all for educating people and promoting best practices. Keep up the great posts, I've learned a lot from them. AND Chin Rey.. I get you both mixed up sometimes cuz nicks are similar, he he.

Ok, so let's add 'you're a liar' to the all the previous accusations in this thread. Always attacking the person, and not addressing counter points being made. It's okay, I'll just up my game and start taking screenshots from now on.

Bitsy Buccaneer wrote: But yet you think it's ok for you to try to force and shame others into doing things like changing their off-site blog posts?That's what you've been doing here, whether you see it or not. All I remember is addressing a group of forum members who wanted to 'force' and 'shame' SL content creators into putting copy and mod permissions on all their products. I offered counter-arguments to such opinions. Their discussion on this matter spans several SL-related blogs and forums, including this one. How did they propose to 'force' and 'shame' creators to do so? It was suggested on a related blog(s) and forum(s) that SL Content creators who did not include copy/mod permissions on all of their products; 1) were 'anti-consumerist' and 'conducting bad business practice'. This could be considered by some as 'anti-competitive' behaviour, as it relies on bashing competitors and putting one's own business above another. 2) that SL consumers should refuse to buy products from creators who do not include copy/mod permissions on their products. The word 'boycott' was even used, which is defined and understood as 'a call or rally to stop buying or using the goods or services of a certain company as a protest action.' 3) should be put on a 'name and shame list' in order to 'force' and 'shame' them into changing their marketing practices. 4) are 'prideful', 'egotistical', 'insecure', 'inexperienced', 'fearful', 'paranoid', 'selfish', 'uneducated on issues', 'disrespect their customers', etc 5) would lose business because of it 6) should change their mesh workflow to accommodate end use in SL Bitsy Buccaneer wrote: The term "anti-consumerist" is in this thread ONLY because you brought it here. Is it any wonder I would suggest that these 'call to actions' could be considered 'anti-competitive'? Anti-Competitive 'An anti-competitive practice is defined as any practice that has, is intended to have, or is likely to have, the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition' - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anticompetitive 'Actions that marginalize, belittle, or defame individuals or groups inhibit the satisfying exchange of ideas and diminish the Second Life community as a whole' - https://secondlife.com/corporate/cs.php As a result, a related blog post changed their wording to reflect a more positive call-to-action, and removed any labels previously assigned to SL Content creators who did not market their products as the blogger wished them to. If this statement changed because of the discussion we've had on this forum, then that is a natural and organic result of seeing differing points of view - what a forum is for and about. So... who or what group is the one attempting to 'force' or 'shame' who again? I am all for choice, for both the average SL user and for SL Content Creators. I believe the free market will decide, and that both parties are free to do as they see fit. It was the attitude by some parties around this issue that I mainly addressed, as some of the opinions (listed above) certainly influenced the position of each poster on the matter. In the meantime, for those who want full copy and mod permissions, there are over 25,000 items available in the Building & Object Components section to serve both parties wishes. They offer optimized texture layouts and kits, and blank meshes they can work with to their hearts content. The market this group demands is already provided, they're just shopping in the wrong place.

LOL, this forum is like a bad game of 'telephone', as it seems people just respond before reading something correctly, use a bad analogy and it just breaks down... The original statement was; Don't go to a pizza parlour and demand they make you wonton soup and egg rolls. Don't get mad at them if they don't want to make wonton soup and egg rolls. Don't try to 'name and shame' them for not doing so. Don't call them 'anti-consumerist' or any other number of labels because they don't want to do so. Slapping barbeque sauce on a pizza is a mod analogy now? How did we get from "I want a blue box, but you're selling red" to "I want wonton soup and egg rolls, but you only sell pizza", and those that seem to be demanding their cake and eat it to.. to this weird analogy about being 'allergic to pork' and slapping barbeque sauce or 'rancid fish and paint thinners' as being equivalent to mod permissions? In other words, as stated before, "Maybe if it's not on the menu, it's not for dinner", means just go shop elsewhere; find what you want to buy, don't try to force or shame creators into doing anything. Fluffy Sharkfin wrote: I'm not entirely sure how her statement of "I want to encourage you to support those content creators who do release moddable rigged/fitmesh content" got twisted into the concept of a boycott on creators that don't offer modifiable content but I'm fairly certain that wasn't her intent and it clearly isn't lending anything constructive to the debate on Mod vs No-Mod content! Thats because her original sentiment on the topic was posted on her personal blog, and after the discussion in this topic, she has gone back to edit it and use a more positive tone instead. If you read the discussion from the very beginning, you would have seen this, and every other label and accusation slapped on merchants who don't conduct business as a group thinks they should.

Theresa Tennyson wrote: Both creators and customers are free to do what they want. What I'm curious about is why you seem so opposed to customers creating lists of approved/disapproved creators and announcing those who they will do business with and those who they won't, and encouraging others to do the same. Assuming the information is accurate, it's just education and allowing customers to shop more efficiently. If their arguments are invalid they'll be ignored. Is it for fear of hurting creators' widdo feewings? Do we need to create a "safe space" for creators? No, because feelings don't count, only actions. It's one thing to review a product, and promote those creators who you like - that's fine, as it's all positive based, and doesn't rely on name and shame lists (built on opinions only), nor on bashing would-be/percieved competitors in order to bolster one's own business or position. I used the term 'anti-competitive' for a reason, as it does not break the SL TOS with such actions on one's own blog, or on alternate Second Life forum sites, but the result, and the antisocial, hostile behaviour it promotes, is not what Second Life is about. "By bashing the competition, you are doing exactly what you don’t want to do. You are removing the focus from your solution and placing the focus — and the customer’s — on the competition. A better strategy is to keep the customer focused on your solution. Keep them focused on your superior value and what makes you different. Get them to see you as the benchmark of excellence that the competition must strive to achieve." - http://labs.openviewpartners.com/bashing-the-competition/ So make your lists of creators you like, go ahead. That is fine. Keep it all positive and it's all good. Trash someone else's hard work only because you don't agree with their legal and allowed business practices, only you are going to look nuts to everyone, or as Pam states, looking like you have some grudge of some kind. Theresa Tennyson wrote: 1) Many people who are buying things don't understand the significance of permissions so they wouldn't think to use filters, and filters are only as accurate as the settings the maker puts in the listing. Lists, articles, etc. help educate people so they can make their own decisions. Most of them don't care, and don't have the expectations of permissions or otherwise... they buy what they like. Not sure why people care so much about this topic that they feel they need to 'educate' or 'protect' them... There are truly unethical practices happening on the MP or otherwise each day that deserve far more attention than this topic Theresa Tennyson wrote: 2) There are merchants that do things consumers should know about that won't show up by filters. For instance there's a fairly prominent skin maker who appears to have built their business plan around finding inexperienced users (they advertise heavily on the default viewer search) and selling them mediocre products at higher-than-standard prices using heavily Photoshopped pictures. There's a maker of child-avatar products whose customer-service appears to be borderline psychotic. There's a vendor of very expensive no-copy objects with an extremely bad track record of non-delivery. Some grudges are for very good reasons. Some aren't, of course, but the more information someone has the better choice they can make. And.. now it's waaaaaaay off topic.

Theresa Tennyson wrote: entity0x wrote: Of course, the caveat is that these could be psychological weaknesses in myself, but I hoped to clarify why some creators may not like to do this - valid reasons or not. A brief, flickering flame of self-awareness, long since blown out. Sad. Yes, self-assessment and the ability to realize one might be wrong about a position, and to consider alternate views (as I have in this discussion) should be frowned upon. I guess you ran out of valid arguments.

Theresa Tennyson wrote: I'm generally more of a consumer than a creator, at least of individual objects. If I buy something that is more than a commodity item it generally means that I've determined that the creator is good enough that I will keep what they've done looking pretty much how they've made it. However, there may be times when I want the ability to make invisible changes to an object, especially when Second Life has added features that weren't around when the item was made. Yes, I understand, but maybe if it's not on the menu, it simply isn't for dinner. ( impersonal ) Don't go to a pizza parlour and demand they make you wonton soup and egg rolls. Don't get mad at them if they don't want to make wonton soup and egg rolls. Don't try to 'name and shame' them for not doing so. Don't call them 'anti-consumerist' or any other number of labels because they don't want to do so. Theresa Tennyson wrote: If the creator is so insecure in their own abilities that they keep me from making any changes to it that will influence my decision to buy it though. How would you know if they were insecure or not? And why would it matter? When I bought this fine octopus table with nomod/nocopy, did these kind of thoughts cross my mind? I'm really bewildered at all of this really. This whole thread is almost like some brat demanding ice cream and stomping their feet - and refusing to understand that Mommy simply doesn't have money, or doesn't want them to have sugar today, or simply and bluntly "Mommy doesn't have to explain to you. The answer is no." Bitsy Buccaneer wrote: entity0x wrote: We're not selling game assets here, we're selling virtual furniture for people to put in their virtual Barbie houses, and that's it. In the end, noone owns a damn thing, and are just paying to support their favourite creators to make more cool stuff for them. If you want mod ability so bad, just make your own stuff, and stop telling other people how to make, market and sell theirs. Some questions: Do you really have that low an opinion of your customers and SL users in general? Do you not understand that SL used to be dominated by DIYers and still includes thriving and substantial communities of builders and modders? Do you not realise that pretty much everyone in this thread does make and sell their own stuff? Do you realise how often you tell others what to do? Could your tendency towards that be part of the reason why you assume others are telling you what to do, even when they aren't? Why are you wasting so much of your precious time and energy starting sarcastic threads, making sarcastic mockups and getting so worked up here instead of putting that passion into fulfilling your 'wonderful awesome plans' (your words)? If your ideas and creations are that stellar, why aren't you concentrating on them? Why aren't you finishing them and creating works of art so absolutely amazing Penny puts one on her static landing point and everyone else here just has to have and treasure one? And before you lay into me for talking about people, do you realise that you are the one who keeps making this thread all about you by taking other people's thoughts, preferences and opinions so personally, even if you need to misread them to do so? Wow. Just wow.

Gadget Portal wrote: I think the real problem is when you make all red items, I say to someone, "That store only sells red items, and since it's no mod, you can't change it. Try a creator that sells mod." This would be a smashing strategy, if you are comparing two close or identical, generic, or similar products. In many different other markets that don't feature competing and similar designs, the merchant may desire other options, and appeal to a different market, and is in NO danger of losing business from anyone who appreciates his/her work. Those with unique designs from fashion to furniture to music equipment to sci-fi bases are in no threat of losing business because of permissions. One of the biggest stores in SL I frequent for sci-fi stuff and music stuff (in the past) still is made up of no mod/no copy items - and they're still there after 10 years, with no signs of stopping. You can continue to demonize any that do, but if you want to mod something so much, perhaps it's time to make your own creations - and then take your own advice and open it up with any permissions you want. We're not selling game assets here, we're selling virtual furniture for people to put in their virtual Barbie houses, and that's it. In the end, noone owns a damn thing, and are just paying to support their favourite creators to make more cool stuff for them. If you want mod ability so bad, just make your own stuff, and stop telling other people how to make, market and sell theirs.

You have only represented your needs, and unless you have any statistics backing up the actual needs and preferences of the average SL'er, it's all opinion. It's already been said over and over to you. You have no right to dicate terms to creators, or have any ethical stance to call for boycotting them, or calling them 'anti-consumerist' or otherwise. Thanks for your opinon, you can now stop repeating yourself. The free market will decide.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: A boycott IS the market deciding. Consumers will join it - the market standing against something - or refuse to join it - the market standing for something. A boycott is the most vocal way the consumer voices their collective opinion. It is the perfect way to let the market decide. If you're on the right side of this, a boycott will not harm you one bit. It is a great way to see if consumer opinion is with or against you. There have been product lines in SL that people have tried to organize against for the very reasons discussed in this thread - to no effect. There have been other product lines that have been killed off because of these very reasons. The market spoke loudly in both cases. But my issue in this thread has been that everyone here but one poster has maintained a civil and polite method of discussing their stance. That one poster though, has repeatedly said things like: "Screw your design professionals." Using angry hostile words when not being personally attacked - highly uncalled for. And that HAS shaped my opinion as a consumer. See this is the problem, in order to truly comprehend what is typed in a conversation, one must have a vocabulary, a library of words that they know the definitions of, to provide insight and context to it all. No, 'letting the market decide' (also known as 'the free market') is not the same as a 'boycott', which is defined as; "A boycott is an act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for social or political reasons. The purpose of a boycott, (or calling for one) is to inflict some economic loss on the target, or to indicate a moral outrage, or to try to compel the target to alter an objectionable behaviour." Therefore, a boycott is actually a militant, evangelistic action. By acting in this manner on this subject, and calling for consumers to do so, you are acting in an 'anti-competitive' manner. It's one thing to politely ask and discuss, and perhaps convince creators to change their policies, and another to defame them by calling them 'anti-consumer' and 'conducting bad practices'. Shall I post some of the nasty things that are said about these same creators on some internet blogs and the alternate SL forums on this matter? They are far from reasonable, and unfriendly (and definitely sound self-entitled) in their assessments of many creators who SL relies on for content. "If you are on the right side of this"? Huh? There is no right side of this or wrong side of this.. It is opinion, and once again is up to each consumer, and is the right of anyone who submits content for use in SL. Why is it that you are simply unable to accept this, or even discuss any points counter to your own? Instead, you must pick out some line in a response, that has offended you personally somehow, or wasn't delivered in the manner you demand, and derail the conversation instead... Yes, 'screw what your so-called design professionals say', because an Argument From Authority means nothing. Your design professionals are opinion only, and not fact, and that statement is made in that context. You're assuming that the participants in this discussion aren't professionals themselves, or are not educated on the matter themselves. Even so, this was never brought into the conversation, because we're mainly discussing opinions here, and trying to learn from it. You want to project anger and hostility into my comments, and as stated many times, that is not the nature of my responses. I reply firmly and with conviction, and I back up every statement I make - even if I have to repeat myself 3 times (when people don't read posts before responding) to do so. I'm not worried about your type as a consumer, because you would take more than you give anyway. There is no 'right' side to this whole affair, it's just your opinion, and literally a handful of self-entitled, condescending know-it-alls who simply act anti-competitive in SL, in order to assure their own position in it. Let's allow the market to decide. Freedom of the creator to make cool stuff for SL, allowing the consumer to weigh the benefits and cons, to compare prices for services offered, the quality of the products. There's no need to engage or entertain some kind of 'Boycott-Gate". You're free to not be a customer of mine, or anyone else's who you are not happy with. In the meantime, I will decide for myself what I would like to do, and be willing to discuss why with anyone interested.

Penny Patton wrote: First, there is nothing sinister about retexturing and renaming content. If you believe there is, I don't know what to say to you. I don't recall anyone or myself saying that doing so is sinister, I've just been presenting the possible results of users editing products that have taken a lot of time to make. I've been only presenting reasons why I would believe many creators would not desire to allow this end use, all the while also understanding that it adds benefits to the end user's experience as well. Noone is arguing that the SL user wouldn't benefit from mod/copy permissions. My position has been handling the defaming comments made on personal blogs and alternate SL forums (which can be seen today) which call for boycotting of, and even labeling with nasty anti-consumerist-ish names, of creators who dont carte blanche mod/copy on everything. Let the market decide, is really the only fair answer here. Penny Patton wrote: I'm really not sure what i meant by "so she can make money from it". The only land I have in SL right now is my personal home, which is not open to the public. It's just a place for me and friends to hang out. Just what are you insinuating? Notice the use of may and can in many of my posts, that only implies the ability to conduct an action. Many sim owners generate an income either with direct intent or by accepting donations from visitors to their sim.. This helps offset the cost of the sim, and in many cases also makes a profit. Many assets on these sims are made by the creators we are discussing in this topic. Let's not get too far off, the statement wasn't made to throw it off topic. Personally, I don't want some of my projects to be used as Lego parts, and that isn't going to change soon. One day I will make some sets that people CAN use as lego parts. In the meantime, other products need to be varying permissions depending on the intended presentation and end use of... Penny Patton wrote: Look, giving people mod perms doesn't mean you're no longer creating content people want to use as-is, or that the changes they make will turn it into an entirely different item bearing no resemblance to the original. Yes, I understand this, and so do other creators. My position has always been about choice, and not being labeled as hostile, selfish, egotistical, 'precious' or otherwise if I choose permissions as part of the experience of the product. You're arguing your side, I'm arguing an alternate side, and giving as clear of examples as I can to validate my argument. Through this perhaps we can all find a happy medium where artists don't feel that their hard work is wasted, and that all they amount to is mesh makers. I've done my own experiments with mod items, and YES, you can modify it so much, from resizing, retexturing, rescripting, renaming, and relinking to the point the original creator(s) are lost, and I become for all intents and purposes the 'creator' of the product. For a creator, this is a bastardization of the hard work they put into a creation, spending time presenting it as it is, but now it's gone.. For a creator who is also a business owner, ( and presumably wants to profit ), that product is now unrecognizable, and amounts to just another lego piece in someone's toolbox, and potential customers don't even know where to get it, or who made it, or even know it was part of something to start with at all. Meanwhile.. the sim owner had incorporated it into their own builds, and collecting fees and donations from it... For those in the business of selling mesh in SL, without the intent of making 'builder's parts' (important distinction to make, as there is a whole section dedicated for customers like you who want mod/copy parts) , this is kind of a big deal, as the time we spend into the piece means we want people to see it, and perhaps come and get their own copy. This is the struggle - Do we put the work in, to only have it changed anyway? Do we allow mod and copy more, then wonder why we spend time baking alternate textures, etc... I'm trying to find a happy medium here. The only one I see is to go back to the position I have always taken - let the artist (and the market decide), and for those that disagree, to refrain from calling said creators "anti-consumerist", 'conducting bad practices' or anything else derogatory. That is anti-competitive behaviour, whether it is on this forum, on a personal blog, or alternate SL forums. Penny Patton wrote: I also want to address this idea that selling no-mod somehow makes you an artist with integrity, creating unique beauty in the world, while those who sell moddable content are somehow lesser artists, or greedy business people just in it for the money. That's just ridiculous. I've been selling moddable content in SL since 2005. I'm just as much an artist as anyone else and take great pride in my work. I create content I want to use, and put a lot of effort into improving my craft. We just have different feelings about how others interact with our art. I don't see anyone's position as presenting themselves as an artist on a higher level at all. In fact, personally I know exactly where I stand and how much I have to learn, and I constantly strive to optimize for the end use and enjoyment of everyone in SL as much as possible - if there are better ways of doing things, I'm always eager to learn and improve. My concerns are the integrity of some of my products, existing and future, which suits limited permissions for valid reasons that I've stated (or even not so valid, but to also say it's my right to do so anyway, really). It has nothing to do with ego, but the end use of a certain product. No one said it was greedy to give people what they want. A point was made that making popular art always sells more than unknown, and 'original' art.. it's just a burden to bear. If anything the opinion would be wistful, and not to be taken as gospel. However, the point was made to underline a point... An artist who spends more time trying to offer something unique, rather than just modeling an existing product from a reference image(s), is probably going to be a bit more possessive about it, because of more time investment. Their 'attitude' if any, is not of superiority, but rather a time investment they feel just goes down the tubes when others are suggesting they undermine their artistic vision, to suit and end use they're not really catering to at the moment, or with the product involved. This doesn't mean that they won't extend permissions to other products for a different copy/mod end use. It's interesting to me, that my most favourite items I purchased in SL when I first started, and seemed to me to be the highest quality, were no mod, no copy items. Their perceived value also seemed to be greater by default as well, as they felt more like 'real' products - something I could actually lose if not careful. I can understand why the makers made it so, and it's not really an issue with me. If there is a problem or I need a redelivery, I just contacted the creator and got it redelivered. I don't know their reasons, and I didnt care really, because their products were excellent as is - thats why I bought the damn thing lol. Perhaps there is a reason why these products were so superior, compared to their moddable counterparts, who were made so because of improper UVmapping, sloppy mesh and sculpts, less functionality, buggy scripts... I wonder... Penny Patton wrote: I've said again and again that there are certain instances were no-mod makes sense, and that different creators have different ambitions and goals for their content in SL. Great, on that we agree. My beef was more with your campaign calling for people to boycott creators that do so, without maybe considering why some of us would do it - and I guess it was up to me to do so. You seem to have somewhat corrected that on your blog, but nastier comments on alternate SL forums remain. Penny Patton wrote: However, your most recent comments do suggest that you do believe making content moddable somehow opens them up to some sort of content theivery, so maybe you're not being entirely honest when you say you sell no-mod purely for personal, artistic reasons and you do worry about some nebulous spectre of content theft. Oh I have no illusions about content theft, I've had to deal with it as long as I have put anything up on the internet. I've learned to accept it as part of business, and to not worry about it so much. While one cannot stop content thievery, one can still work with it and put in measures where one still gets recognized and credit anyway - at the least it must be taken as a compliment, and as free advertising really. Penny Patton wrote: You want to sell art pieces in SL which should only be used as you, the creator, intended. Fair play to you, go for it. I have my opinions about that of course, but I doubt I'd change your mind and you're free to sell how you please. Since the beginning I have been addressing more practical, yet flawed, reasons given for selling no-mod. Specific reasoning that I've done my best to clearly identify and examine so the community can have an honest, open discussion about them. And I appreciate the time you took in your responses, and I am hearing a different view about things, and I will ponder it of course. I'm here to improve SL, not destroy it, so I am always open to countering views. Just remember, I will fight hard for my position, offering as many supporting statements and examples that I can. Give some of us a little credit, would you? We hear your words and consider them over time and decide for ourselves what we're willing to.. It's not all black and white Hopefully through discussion we can learn from each other, whether we agree on points or not, and come to a happy medium and understanding that benefits everyone in SL, because that is the end goal, right?

Payment info without a credit card can be as simple as linking a Paypal account. You may then be required to make a purchase on the SLMP, or buy Lindens from the Exchange, to verify. You will also have to take the "Mesh Upload" orientation, that will ask you if you understand what copyright means, and if certain mesh upload scenarios are appropriate or disallowed. At some point, if you make enough earnings that you have cashed out, you will have to provide government ID in the form of a scanned document, in order to continue to cash out. Good luck and welcome to SL mesh creation. Look forward to what you add for SL users to enjoy!

There is an opinion out there of how merchants (should) allow mod and copy permissions on their products, with the opinion that those merchants who do not are "anti-consumerist", or conducting "bad business practices", and as a result will 'fail at selling any of their products". There is also a notion that those who create products with nomod are in danger of losing their businesses, but this simply is not, and will never be the case. SL has room for all creators, and the consumers can buy or not buy, as the free market dictates by default. I have stated many reasons why copy and mod permissions may vary from product to products, and how and why they may be used for effect in end-use, marketing or even perceived value of a product. The other side believes the end user should be able to do whatever they want with the product, even going so far as using slogans like "If you can't mod it, you don't own it". Creators for SL are not selling game assets, they are selling virtual copies of the art and content they create, and how the item will be used in the end, dictates a workflow. Keep in mind, at the end of the day, there is no requirement, nor should there be, of a creator to give permissions they don't want to,nor will they lose any business doing so. We want to encourage more creators, and encourage their choice and what is effectively a 'license' that they choose to distribute their content, and we should respect their decision. At the same time, the free market will decide, and consumers can come and go, buy or not buy, as has always been. The following image dictates what some propose creators do with their products... This view could actually be a boon for creators (sarcasm); 1) No more time spent dealing with hi-poly to lo-poly meshes, or creating normal, ambient occlusion, displacement, color and specularity maps, each which must be optimized using compressed images, while maintaining the best detail possible. If the end goal is to give the consumer 'game asset' rights, such as retexturing, re-coloring, re-sizing, re-naming and 're-whatever', this is a different workflow than creating a piece of usable content for SL. I would have thought this was already covered by the category "Building & Object Components" of which there are currently 24,000+ items available, all with mod and copy permissions. Yet some seem to want these permissions available for ALL products in SL, even going so far as saying "If you can't mod it, you don't own it". You're right, you don't really own it. You're not buying a game asset, you're buying a virtual copy of an item to use as in your Barbie castle. 2) Less time spent on scaling and optimizing of UV meshes to dedicate detail to smaller parts vs larger parts, as the end user has scaling and tiling ability already in the Second Life Viewer Build tools. 3) Less time creating quality textures, or multiple textures for different models, or having to make 6 different texture designs. After all, how can we anticipate that the customer doesn't want that chair in pine, but instead carbon steel? So why spend time with this? 3) Less or no time spent post-processing textures Save money and time by not having to paint those details and highlights, or use expensive painting and graphical and PBR software. 4) Less or no time spent creating marketing product shots, including inworld store backgrounds, or contextual ('this is how the bar looks in your club) images to aid your sales and spark the customer's imagination. Don't try too hard to represent your product in that fine VIctorian green floral print! The customer wants it in yellow! So give them mod permissions and let them decide what texture to use! That way you can please everyone and save yourself workflow time! 5) Less or no need to create multiple listings of a product available in different colors, wood textures, clothing textures,, nor time spent on built-in scripting to allow customers to one-touch change textures on the fly. Just upload the pre-unwrapped mesh, making sure there are no stretches, and that any textures the end user chooses will fit and scale efficiently. Wait.. are we making Builder's Components now? I'm confused... 6) Less or no time spent scripting the object, as there are plenty of free or purchased scripts on the Marketplace and inworld to allow the end user full control over the product as they see fit. Also, the end user may want to drop their own script into the product, so save time scripting doors, drawers, lights, animations, movements, and other cool effects, because the end user wants to tear it apart anyway. 7) Less or not time spent inworld creating, optimizing and debugging scripts for advanced functionality on some products. This is kind of covered with above point. 8) Less LI needed in inworld stores to display different items, as product will be a blank canvas for end user to fully customize. Imagine the LI savings you will have in your inworld store, as you don't have to feature 15 of the same couch in different styles anymore! Just put one couch design on the sales floor, and just add "if you don't like this green Victorian floral, just apply your own texture instead". Everyone will be happy! 9) No more need to create clever model names or series, since end use and customer can rename anyways. No more "Johnny's Rustic Country Lemonade Cart", or "Mad Cow Dentist's Table" or "Green Orb Of Destructive Destiny", when the end user can copy and simply rename it "My Cart" instead! 10) Never mind your creative vision, it's all about the money! This is the most important part. Don't ever forget to chase the money to the point where it's no fun for you to create things anymore. Always serve popular demand, what the masses want - especially if it includes popular art "Disney"-style-inspired content that just barely skirts the SL TOS. Let's do this. Let's upload all mesh as full mod, full copy, and let the end user do it all. Hell, I know I can oblige as it will save me tons of time, I don't have to spend as much time sketching, concepting, building, optimizing, texturing, marketing, making videos and music to accompany - whatever I do in my current workflow, and just start making... Building & Object Components... Nah. (edited for clarity, because I can :D )

Gadget Portal wrote: You're getting awfully salty about this whole thing. It's like I said... If it's that upsetting to lose sales because people are learning the truth, maybe there's something wrong with your business model. And if you're not losing sales, and selling no mod is working fine for you, then why all the crying? NOTE: You're a self-identified troll by your avatar, so this response is not necessarily to you (who wants attention by making frequent inciteful comments and accusations), but to anyone who reads this, -for the sake of discussion and clarity. This isn't about me, I'm discussing a topic here. Do you have the intellect to understand that a person can discuss a topic without having to have a personal belief or investment in it? Or hold no animosity at the end of the day for an individual, just because that individual does things different from you? This is how people learn more about things.. they discuss with others that have counter views to their own, so that they can see another, and learn from another view. Even if I present a view with vigor and determination, doesn't mean I can't or won't change my position with new information, or perhaps a view I hadn't considered in the past. The only ones who get salty, upset, or resort to attacking the person, behind the post are the ones who do not understand this. Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. Theresa Tennyson wrote: You obviously consider yourself an artist first instead of a businessperson. Essentially, you just confirmed what I said. Thank you! I am an artist first, AND a businessperson. In my posts, I have stated that SL is firstly a creative outlet for me, secondly I make a few things to support my activities and uploads into SL, thirdly learning to work in 3D to make creations come to life, and SL is my main sharing ground. Currently it's a small business, and it's profitable. Right now, I re-invest earnings back into more learning and tools, and into the day to day dealings in SL. My goals are also not just in SL, but in other avenues. If the SL business grows, that's great, but no, it isn't my foremost goal, and for many it shouldn't be. It changes them, corrupts them, makes them overly anxious and hostile, competitive, and therefore threatened at times by countering opinion. This creates elitism and some of the statements made on these forums can reflect that. Also, don't mix my opinions with my end actions, as I discuss topics with a razor's edge or appearance of stubbornness, but I always take countering opinions into consideration. I just fight hard for a position at the time, and ask for fair and well-thought out counter-responses. (I'm actually trying to help the person convince me of their position). But no, if I wanted to make a business, and have less fun at it, I would just produce the average things that everyone wants, pay more attention to top selling products, and learn/make them, etc.. it IS a different mindset. However, I think this point is a little off the topic, because it should be about WHY or WHY NOT to have certain permissions, and whether or not the average consumer should boycott those who do not provide it (I gave reasons why some may not want to - still not responded to), and the general nastiness of posters stating that merchants who dont give carte blanche to users to modify their works are 'anti-consumerist', etc. I see a lot of repeating opinions, but no real supporting statements behind them.

Use baked textures, so that the textures only are useful on the actual mesh itself. That doesn't prevent stealing of course, but it limits it's use. Also, it's a compliment if they're stealing your stuff. Since you can't stop it, just go "cool it must be worth stealing", and go create something new for them to steal too. If you are really concerned about it, you can upload each and every texture you create to an online site (with watermarks) as a secondary record that you own the designs, or first came up with concepts, styles, etc.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: The person who thinks first of the customer's interests makes mod. You could say this person is 'altruistic' OR you could say they're mercenary. The person who thinks of their own interests might make mod or no-mod. You could say this person is artistic OR you could say they are selfish. Screw your design professionals. It's an opinion, it doesn't make it fact just because some professor said it. I also don't make the mistake of assuming what my customers want or don't want. I probably care about the end customer by utilizing different permissions to enhance the experience of the product. If that experience demands that the product will stay intact, then it will. Just as I realize my opinion on matters isn't going to reflect everyone else's I also respect people expect different things.. the market will decide what people want. As an artist, I have a vision for what I want to produce, how it will be presented, how it will act and be interacted with, and noone is going to make me undermine it. If people don't want to experience the relatively few products I will put out in the next year, and are worried about permissions, they're going to miss out. A true fellow artist would understand this.

Perhaps those that only go to the IKEA catalogue or 'vogue' furniture and fashion sites, who's bulk of inventory is made up of copied 'reference image' replicas of work not concieved on their own, could be so flippant and easy going with their creations. Some of us, thumbnail, sketch, concept, construct, create textures, breathe life into with scripts and strive to create unique, amazing items never before seen in SL. We CARE about our creations and where they end up, and we CARE that they are looked upon as TOP KNOTCH. We also appreciate other creators who are also innovative and creative and unique, mod/copy or not... The octopus table was fine the way it was. No copy, no mod... NO PROBLEM. You want a 'business'? Sell items that are ripoffs of RL items.. just replicate everything and sell them as your own, and think you are contributing to SL.. No wonder some can have 1000's of dresses and shoes in their stores - THEY'RE NOT THEIRS, and since the designs really aren't there, they can let their meshes go, to be bastardized and reused - then come and decry unique creators because they market differently (and aren't always about the freaking $$$$$$$$$$$$ all the time)... the $$$$$$$$$$. God I hate the $$$$$$$$$$$$$. It's always about the $$$$$$$$$$ to many isn't it? But guess what? Some of us must really piss you off, some of us original types.. Cuz guess what, we make money too.. In the end we win because we create the things YOU'll copy later. Chew on that. Slow and steady and unique wins the race. (Okay rant over: responses below) Penny Patton wrote: There are content creators who sell furniture no-mod because they want you to have to buy multiple copies if you want to place more than one copy of that furniture on your land. Yes, you're free to pass on shopping with them at all, and I would encourage people to do so, but that is the intent of the seller. Once again you ignored other reasons, not one was ever presented the desire to make customers buy multiple copies. I can safely say you don't read (or probably can't comprehend) and too eager to condescendingly respond and assume a poster's temperament instead of arguing points instead. There was a legitimate, marketing strategy (with examples) I posted as to why a merchant may want no mod on an item, where is your response to this? All you did is repost your opinion again, without addressing other points made. Gadget Portal wrote: You're getting awfully riled up over something that you're saying doesn't concern you. Why are you so upset about Penny educating people with correct information? If you're afraid it's going to hurt your business model, maybe you need a new business model. Personal attack on Riley. Doesn't address any points he/she made. HarrisonMcKenzie wrote: You are aware that disagreeing with someone and getting upset are two different things, right? Adding modify permissions adds nothing to my business. All it means is turning over my rights as an artist. I don't want to do that so I don't. And as far as I can tell, the entire kid clothing market also sells with no-mod, so the argument that my business will hurt if someone else sells with those permissions isn't a valid one. I made my informed choice. Voicing that choice in a discussion isn't me getting upset, nor am I afraid that my business will suffer. That's you getting upset over my choice, not be being upset over it. That's exactly what the hell is being proposed. Penny wants the ability to purchase your original sketched, concepted, constructed and textured mesh for a free end-use, including retexturing and renaming, adding to her own custom builds on her sim so she can make money from it. That is not the reason I started creating in SL, it was for my fellow and average SL'ers to use on their own lands and enjoy, and they make stuff for me to enjoy. Read her blog to see what end use she would have for YOUR creations. She also hasn't addressed any points made about why creators should bother spending so much time on textures, materials, or even design if the end use would amount to retexturing, recoloring, rescripting, deconstruction/reconstruction/spare parts.. Why are any of us even uploading anything other than a UV unwrapped white mesh then?

Sassy Romano wrote: Ok, now, you're starting to understand it. I hope you understand where I'm coming from, and those that may conduct themselves like me. We're not in this to rip anyone off, or to avoid commissions.. but at the same time see the value in giving incentives for people to visit inworld for discounts As I suggested earlier, if we just got LL to take commissions from inworld sales as well, this would no longer be an issue, I also would like people to acknowledge this barely qualifies as 'anti-competitive', even if LL is involved, and that either the policy is clarified, or changes made so that everyone is happy. The commissions are more than fair, so even if applied to inworld products, at least LL would be happy, and people can market here like they might in RL, avoiding confusion and people getting into trouble for doing what they might in RL (and honestly so) Sassy Romano wrote: PLEASE could you write, think, proof-read, think, proof-read again before posting? It seems that LL have yet again broken the forums and a new email is sent per individual change, which means that when you make half a dozen or more minor alterations, those of us who take an email feel, get a new email per change anyway! Sorry about that, I will try. I frequently have to clarify, change things, or add new responses for posts, all the while trying to keep them organized. Thanks for the heads up on that.