Codex Alpha

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.

My bad. It's been a while since I've used Avsitter (2.1) and forgot this was included for the customers. That's good, since AvSitter doesn't require objects to have mod ability, though I do believe they cause the product to appear no-mod when it's included. I don't have a problem with people unlinking stuff in general or having mod in general - that is just how I'm being portrayed by posters who don't read my initial arguments in good faith - and they don't understand that just because I present a position or thought - doesn't mean I believe in it or practice it myself. I just want to control certain products for whatever reason I want to - (which are not negative, egotistical, 'elite', and all the negative framings some have said), and I shouldn't be hated, targeted or cancelled for it. I guess the only thing to do is block those people because they can't have a civil discussion without getting personal.

I've experimented with and released products that have those options, precisely so that the consumer can still have all the options they want - that some have posted here, yet not having to allow unlinking of the product. - Please note that some care about unlinking some products so much, that they say they will rez the product in a script-blocked zone so they can bypass any scripts in the product. - so some go very far. This is to avoid any state llChangeLink? checks and such. I've included ability to change color and tint in my product, via menu scripts. I've experimented (but did not complete) a menu option that even accepts valid RGB values and apply to product faces. I've included resize scripts that resized all linked items so various avatars could fit, though unfortunately scaling will mess up sit positions and animation positions (and if one uses Av Sitter, consumer can't access it to tweak it). I've even experimented with repositioning parts, similar to animation, but they are poses that the product can do, but it is limited due to notecard size - saving the positions takes a lot of room. I bet every reason that someone would need mod (and demand it) can be answered through script interfaces anyway, which gives the consumer what they want even if it is no-mod - so I don't see the problem. Over the years when this discussion comes up, it always starts with something innocent as wanting to tint something, but when you go deep, unlinking objects and repurposing them seems to be the most popular (for products this might apply to). It would be great to grant all these permissions by default to simplify things and give the most options to end users, but just short of being able to read your scripts that may contain proprietary innovative code or methods, and unlinking your product if it is made up of several meshes.

LOL, I'd be okay with almost every other form of mod, it's the unlinking of stuff I don't like. for 99% of the users out there, the option simply is not necessary. FOR those products that I wish to not be unlinked, not all.

Ingredients for a dish are open source and available to all, but how the cook concocted the dish is IP, and is worth some value. Or we should all share everything and there's no reason to spend the time to innovate or create something elaborate or amazing - as it will just be taken away from you. This is why these kind of discussions smack of an ideology more than anything else, and the topic and others and the forum itself is a battleground for some to affect greater social change in the world.

Sure, but some of the arguments and demands made in this topic could be applied to scripts too, so... To be clear, I'm all for protecting IP, while giving the most use by the consumer - a balance. That balance is already here by allowing creators to choose what permissions they want on a product. People shaming them doesn't make their arguments any stronger. A simple open door script doesn't need to be protected, or a simple teleport script. Those should be considered 'simple' and basic scripts available to all. However a script that operates a multi-piece (linked) composition, and how it accesses Flickr or how it rezzes things and makes them spin and react to user input doesn't need to be open. The points made about allowing the user to 'fix' the product, be it a script or part of a composition are equal, and apply to both. Some creators don't want their products pulled apart, or messed with, and it is THEY that are the most qualified to fix their product, and through iteration and updates can make a stable product.

Nope. If we decided to do this, it's across the board. No creation is more or less than the other, and everything is mod.

Re: wish more modular kits. It's probably for the reasons I've outlined. With mod enabled, anything you build modularly can be unlinked and used as a building set and at a much lower price than is worth to put the time into it. The benefit of having an outdated computer (mine is severely behind due to 2020) is that if what you build works on your computer, you know it will work on the average computer out there! Like if your world runs well on your potato, you know it can be seen on mobile or other formats too!

Many of us have learned from, taught others, shared our knowledge, our assets all our stuff with others. Creators on SL are a mixed lot, so stop painting them all with the same brush. Appreciate the work that goes into these things, and consider why some would choose to no-mod their items and accept it. You don't have to buy it, but I would say you're going to far if you decide to do some crusade to boycott a particular creator or to disparage them or cause them loss of reputation or status in the community because they don't do what you would like.

Yes, that's where I've been at for the last year and really honing that to make super efficient 1-2 material builds that are fast and make use of all that awesome stuff. Taken me a while to learn everything, being self-taught (and sharing lots with others and giving lots of stuff away for free and mod, etc!), but this kind of attitude in SL really bums me out - as all this texture planning is a lot of work - so satisfying when done, but why would one want to share anymore or do the work with so much entitlement and disrespect going round? I'm all onboard for making SL faster and more efficient. I more than most am aware of the lag textures cause, it's been the bane of my existence and enemy of my computer for as long as I been here.

And I love it all. I support all creators at any level and what they want to do with them.

Maybe a solution. Creators switch to creating mesh only, unwrapping it to accommodate tiling textures (because thats all someone can truly 'modify' 'their' product) and people can texture it for themselves. I know it would save me a TON of time, as texturing itself is specific, made efficient, etc but apparently that part has been ignored from earlier being one of my justifications. The ultimate "You modify" "You express yourself creatively" product strategy out there. I could really get onboard with such a movement LOL. Then I don't have to worry if I picked the Wrong table cloth design, or the wrong wood, or the wrong candle wax and color. Just leave it to the end user.. Man I could pump this stuff out big time

Right, so I don't know why the discussion and the claims made as to the intent of the creators of said products continues... It's all so simple. What is the goal for those that post further? What do they seek to accomplish or what changes would they like to see? AND.... they continue below in the next posts to return to slandering creators who don't give them products with permissions that they outright DEMAND, including some entitlement to tear apart creations (unlinking) and using them as cheaper building parts because... "They're immoral, and I'm entitled to it!"

Can we have a discussion and allow disagreement (or different views on this subject) - that I am open to discussing as all I want to do is hear different opinions, and offer my own - without framing creators as bilkers, egotistical or any other means of labeling their attitude? I operate out of good faith, and I believe most long term creators here do, so can we keep it friendly and without implication of bad faith? Thanks. Sure, you and others have made valid points for pro-mod items and I appreciate it. Conversely though, on other platforms that I have provided assets for building and many options to customize, I have found I have overestimated the newer 'builder' for the amount of customization or even work to build from base assets... They preferred the purchase and plop - so yes I believe there is a difference between age groups, player groups, gaming communities, etc. It's like that in RL too many times. Too many choices, too many options and the majority of consumers will not understand what's available, may not care anyway, or confuses them. We have all types of customers in SL, and I believe that most of the posters here are old-timers and value this stuff, but I think they care too much about this - when the average user probably does not. Again, nice to have, nice to provide, but not necessary.

Good response, thanks.

Exactly, and that's where it should begin and end. People can say "I like mod permissions, I encourage mod permissions" and stop short of "Any creator who doesn't do this is 1, 2, 3, and 4". It just creates bad blood imo. Well that's your opinion, and your preference, but may not reflect the buying decisions and usage of the average consumer, not only on SL, but on any platform that supplies assets to use in personal worlds. Well then, with your 'talents' then no-mod should not be an issue for you. As far as being anti-consumer, how so? It's these claims that go on past an opinion on no-mod that becomes offensive. Now read these two statements, and not think that it is somehow not aggressive or accusatory or entitled. The competition arguably has millions of more users than SL, and many of them have NO permissions, NO marketplace, no customization past tinting and scaling.. yet millions happily purchase and build entire worlds on those platforms... Mod is nice to have, but not necessary. 3) I only want you to have ONE instance of the item Yes, somehow I'm getting no copy mixed up in the convo. That one instance item would apply to the argument that I only want you to have one of the item (like a car, machine, scene, etc) 5) The product is intended to be used as a composition, and not a building set It may not be obvious to some, but I think the intended end use would probably affect the price that the product is sold for: A single home constructed and sold as one piece, vs someone with modify permissions unlinking the build and possibly using it as a building piece set - at a bargain price. I'm just asking these questions and posing these arguments to try to understand other people's thinking on all of this - and offer some of the reasons that I and other creators MAY decide to not include mod on a product. I'm sure there are ways I can do things to mitigate this possibility, but I would hope people would understand the difference, and why even things would get priced differently and permissions differently depending on the product and intended end use. I'm also not applying my logic to ALL situations and ALL products and how some users might use them, so give me a break.

I don't really think no-mod is that much of an issue for the majority of asset purchasers, be it on SL or any other platform. I don't believe people go shopping online, or in stores in RL buying things that are not in the color they like, the fabric they like, the configuration they like, or w/e - with the plans to purchase it anyway and take it home and 'make it their own'. It doesn't hurt to have mod, I just don't agree it is necessary. I'm not against mod permissions, nor am I ignorant of the benefits of allowing mod - I just don't understand the almost rude entitlement some demonstrate here in 1) straight up demanding it 2) claiming creators lose sales (got any stats on that) and 3) constantly reminding us that they and their cronies 'won't buy anything from that creator'. Good for you, then don't buy it, what do you want creators who mod or no mod to say to you? Yes, mod permissions is nice. It's nice to be able to change something later if you want. I just don't agree that it is necessary, nor should people be trying to frame creators who don't as anything less than anyone else. So I'm not sure about the motivation of those who promote this so much. Like why do you care so much? Looking in my inventory I have a few pieces that are no-mod and I've never even thought twice about them. In fact, I can't remember the last time I felt I needed to retexture a product I purchased. Even all my clothes I bought as is, for good reason (I liked them) and never changed them in 10 years. Everything I buy, I buy because I like how it was made, textured, the aesthetic, the craftsmanship. Very rarely if ever would I say "Oh I like this, but I want it in blue, so I hope it's mod!", though I'm sure some do - but not the majority of consumers out there. This seems to just be a thing a select few SL-forumers bring up from time to time, but with no real argument other than claims "They won't get sales" or "I won't buy" Ok. good we all hear you. Long ago when this came up, a creator mentioned something about texturing, UV'ing and how he and other creatures may texture their work and that mod permissions won't help you at all - if your intent is just to change a texture on a product you bought.. Unless the texture is a tiling one, and not an advanced one (that expert textures use to have high quality results, UDIMs, trims, atlases, baked) - having mod just to change textures won't help you. These products don't need to be modded, and even if allowed - wouldn't have the results MOST consumers would need anyway. What is also not addressed is a creator's time to texture an asset. A good texturer 'tells a story' with the texture and uses texture-making tools, layers, PBR to communicate this. Time is taken to create textures (especially the old school albedo, normal, gls/nrm(tga), spc/env(tga) ) but I'm to believe someone will buy a product and want ability to change it later? SL is not the only platform where people create, sell and use assets in their scenes or for their games. The same for the majority of buyers holds true: They buy what they like as the product was presented, and plop it down in their scene or game level and enjoy it. Developers may have a need to further customize your work, or adjust colors and textures - but you sell that to them with those enabled - and they also have the skill to deal with custom textures as mentioned. If users on SL or anywhere else truly purchased things based on 'changing it' later, then how do they decide to purchase something? Its shape? It's use? Will they buy something with an ugly texture, but because it has mod, they'll buy it anyway (Doubt it). SUMMARY OF MY POSITION: I'm not advocating against mod, I just don't think it's necessary, nor should creators be seen less because they haven't enabled it on some products (I have given numerous reasons as to why they would want to exclude mod).

Much like in review sections in RL, on Yelp, Google or even a department store site, reviews don't really help anymore as they are mostly polarized. You'll have reviews with 5 stars heralding the product as the most amazing thing out there, and then there will be 1-star ratings claiming they are the worst thing ever, scam, ripoff, etc. This is why with reviews, it seems only the most happiest and the most angriest people leave a review. In SL, in general, people will buy your product and not leave a review because they are satisfied. It is very RARE to get any review nowadays - I notice that products from 10+ years ago have much more participation, but nowadays people don't bother for the most part. The reviews I get are of course polarized as well. Most, if not all of the 'negative' reviews I've gotten have mainly been user error, misunderstanding, or even now with PBR and even FULL SL Texture sets - get angry complaints because those users do not have ALM or ability to see PBR. The problem is, I and other creators will bend over backwards to make these customers happy, or to educate them... and our $40 cents of profit long out the window... will solve their issue, yet their INACCURATE review remains on your product. You can report it, and LL comes and sees and thinks "Well that's a legit review with concerns, why is he flagging this 1 star review?" Why? Because there is no option for us to have a 'customer problem resolved' on the product, even if the issues were legit and were fixed (with a product update). I've had several listings have low ratings due to ALM in the past that kept their low ratings even though I responded inworld and on the listing, AND YES THEIR SALES WENT DOWN - on perfectly good products! Reviews without context, reviews without ability to 'resolve' them if they are negative, and reviews that don't actually help improve the product, are no help at all - and could actually damage the listing and potential sales... "I would have given this 5 stars, but it didn't come in blue, the textures don't look inworld as do in pictures (Even though I take pictures in HIGH NOON ugliest light because if it looks good there, it will look good anywhere!), and it is nomod/copy, etc - so I gave it 1-3 stars..." The flag mechanism needs a "I believe this review is outdated/irrelevant/problem solved" or yes, some creators may be tempted to relist - and for LEGITIMATE (even if illegal to do). The result on some listings is I just remove them, and the experience(s) have a longer lasting impact that I am now discouraged from putting up more stuff (especially PBR) as I don't want to waste my time until it's guaranteed the product will be represented properly - OR having an option to remove 'reviews' that are just bug reports and complaints.

Well, after all the assumptions of bad faith and negative portrayals of creators who decide to use no-mod on some of their products, it's not like I or any other creators would want to really enter this convo. I've probably already stated my position this, but nothing ever changes in attitudes around here, and this topic pops up every 6 months or so. Here are some reasons I or others MAY decide to no-mod our products: 1) Because we reserve the right to set any permissions we want, and don't really owe anyone any explanation. I don't think it is very courteous or fair to demand things from creators, or shame them or portray them in a negative fashion, in some bid to influence how creators will behave or list items here. You are free to ignore the product and leave it at that, if it does not suit your needs. Now going one step further and saying "I will never buy anything from this creator because this product(s) are no-mod!" is in your power, but then you might miss out on other products you might actually like, and fit with your needs. This number one reason really is where any discussion can end, but I can give more reasons. 2) It protects the creation from getting broken The product might be a specialized machine, vehicle or composition that relies on all its parts working along with the scripts. This action might include the creator having a vision and usage and presentation for the product, and does not desire the product to be represented or used in any other way. Even if one made a 'creator has an ego/pride' argument, then so what? I take pride in things that I make, and I do them to the best of my ability. Yes, sometimes I don't want my baby bastardized, destroyed and meddled with - see #1. It may cut down on complaints and helping people figure out what they did to mess up the product, as a creator can carefully create an interface with the product to change anything that a user might need to, such as textures, colors, lights, etc 3) I only want you to have ONE instance of the item As relating to number 2, it may be a specialized product, robot, machine, vehicle or other that was not meant to be instanced 100 times, on perhaps multiple lands and on multiple users lands, and only to be used one time, in one instance with one user - the customer. I also have felt the same myself, when buying a no-mod product. I've never had such complaints, and of course I wished I could have multiples at times, but I worked with it. Like a certain inworld LSL book on programming with LSL, that you pulled out inworld and flipped through the pages. I can see that creator not wanting you to buy one book, then copying it to all your 33 friends for free. I also held that no-mod piece in high regard, yes due to the fear I would lose it, or leave it behind LOL, and in some people's minds, that creates a feeling of HIGH VALUE to this piece. This is a magical orb object, and must be looked after carefully :-D. No mod, countless copies has the opposite result: a possible perceived 'less value' of sorts, as it is not so precious and unique. 4) To protect IP or to discourage reverse engineering a product Yes, there are individuals out there who have a sole purpose to deconstruct your object for whatever nefarious purpose. This is not as much of a recent concern, but HAS been concerns by creators in the past. That being said, I do deconstruct things myself to learn from, in good faith and do not seek to reverse-engineer or 'copy' someone's product - and can learn a lot from and admire that person because I was able to do so. However, I don't complain if a creator doesn't want to share. Even if some here would like to portray creators as 'paranoid', see #1. They can be paranoid or not, they don't need a reason. That reason is their own. 5) The product is intended to be used as a composition, and not a building set. This is an interesting challenge for me, as I progress (on other 3d platforms) into more of a modular builder and tackling more architectural targets (finally). I must create, texture and optimize each piece, and build final products out of them from the same pieces. These pieces allow me to build several products in the same style and look, and could be sold as their composite products. Sometimes in SL, it is more efficient for Land Impact and LODS for pieces to be uploaded and the product built within SL (the LI impacts can be huge depending on the size of your uploaded piece). So here's the challenge. Do you sell a modular built house with mod or no-mod? If mod, the end user can deconstruct your house and use the pieces to build whatever they want. If it is a full modular set, they could do QUITE A LOT with that. With no-mod, they buy the house as is. Modifications to interior walls, window shades, door passwords, etc can all be provided with a creator made custom menu (like SL homes), so customization wouldn't be a problem. So then, we would need to price our products BY INTENDED END USE. An intact house would be one price. A house BUILDING SET would definitely be a different price, and most likely priced much higher - due to the options available. Also a creator could argue that the home itself is an advanced product, well-oiled crafted product that the creator doesn't want tampered with, relating to previous points... 6) No matter what, the customer is protected anyway, as the product can be redelivered at any time No-mod creations put no undue risk of loss to the customer, and if lost can always be redelivered at any time. EXPERIENCE: Oddly enough, as I am FOR giving the end user as much choice, re-usability and customization, in experience - it doesn't mean that the customer understands they can, want to , or even care. I've had just as many complaints for no-mod as mod items, and amazingly on the items that I spent EXTRA time to have features, customizations, etc - so quite odd. Other 3d asset platforms don't have all the choice that SL'ers too. The vast MAJORITY of users of 3d assets out there (if not game devs, etc) just take the item and plop it in their world and move on. Most are not looking at a dress and saying "I like that blue floral dress, but I'm going to buy it and make it green".

Yet the keyword spam remains: doe,deer,buck,cervine,fur,furry,creature,satyr,baby,ungulate,carrier,pot,potty,pacifier,brood,half,mixed,monster,humanoid,brood,child,kid,fawn,mutant,composite being,composite,being,onesie,family,cute Most of these keywords are mostly redundant, not terms the average person would search for (eg. cervine, ungulate, 'composite being'), or not accurate at all. Many keywords would get hit from people looking for specific things, and your listing coming up would stop them from doing that. NOT A satyr: "A satyr is a mythological creature with the upper body of a man and the lower body of a horse or goat." NOT A furry (SL): "The furry fandom is a subculture interested in anthropomorphic animal characters." NOT A onesie: One piece garment for babies. What you are representing is a swaddle/swaddling NOT A doe (female deer), buck (male deer WITH antlers), fawn (actual baby deer). Hybrid, human, deer, baby is what you're representing. Most products can be described in 3-5 keywords, no more. You have already described it succinctly in the product title "Half Deer Baby", so why do you feel the need to add the rest? NOT A carrier, pot, potty, pacifier, family as relating to you listing a "Half Deer Baby" as the actual product. Use the description to further describe any accessories, bonuses and props that come along with it, and showcase THOSE as well in your images. That being said, almost every listing on Second Life MP would qualify for 'keyword spam' and in past days I'd report those myself, in the misguided effort to 'help clean up the MP', but if I were to do that for every listing I found, my finger would have broken off, and it would be an unpaid full-time job. So hopefully we can change your mind and others here to see the value of using less and more accurate keywords, if only to make your workload creating a listing even easier for you, more accurate, and gets you more customers who are ACTUALLY interested in your product.

It's sad that OP has to put big long disclaimers on his listings still at this point and time, but I feel for the same situation. Once I figured out SL's classic SPC/GLS system, and made the appropriate maps in all the right places and alpha channels, etc, all I got were complaints from those products and low ratings - because people still didn't have their Advanced Lighting Model on, so the textures will appear flat and dead to them. When you explain to them they need ALM, they might go fix it, but their 1 star rating remains, and you no longer sell a single item of that product ever again. This is when I realized most creators were baking lights and environments into their products and many times even foregoing using Normal maps too (from inworld research of many products). If it is done right, baked lighting can certainly trick the eye into thinking the product has more detail and may help to minimize texture load impact. I do like the PBR ease of upload, and not having to create a whole new workflow to get PBR projects into SPC/GLS format as of old, but I suspect the same result can happen "This doesn't look as good inworld as it does in the photos! Looks terrible! 1-star!" can still happen, or even from users who don't know how to set up PBR environment on their own land, etc.

The first answer to why they can continue to list and sell on SL, even though they may clearly represent a brand and design from RL, and sometime obviously - is because unless the copyright holder files a complaint to SL management - they can get away with it. It is very risky for all parties involved, as a copyright holder can simply do an investigation taking a year or more - and calculate damages from that and sue for that amount. It rarely happens though, since SL is not really big enough or even considered at all by a corporation. However, some corporations are more nasty than others about this, and will aggressively pursue any creator (or SL as the platform) they become aware of. The second answer is more related to ethics and what kind of creator do you want to be? An ethical creator who uses RL designs as 'inspiration' for your own designs, and build your brand that way? Or just be another unethical creator who wants to 'replicate the designs of a RL designer/company, and slap my own logo on it and call it my own work AND sell the resulting items for my own profit'. That's the decision many creators have to make at some point. Believe me, copycat stuff sells more than original stuff, and always does no matter what platform the 'replicated designs' are sold on. It DOES pay to upload copyrighted content, or 'replicated designs', as long as the creator can get away with it. It's more of an ethical choice than a legal one. Most likely you can get away with the legal issues (mostly), but it's your integrity and character (and the satisfaction you get) from your activities that you alone can decide.

Yes, I will.