Codex Alpha

You need to be more specific as to what the error is... Are you on land that you are allowed to buld/rez items? Do you have enough Land Impact left to rez the item?

KokaiNe666 wrote: yesterday I could enter my account on the beta server. I did not change anything - the name or password. Just like before. My Weaver - Fire-Storm remembered passwords and I have always belonged. But now I can not login! I try a different account, I try to change the password-but can not login ((Help Who knows -. Aditi work? I have had many and random issues with trying to get onto the beta test server over my time in SL. I have rectified the problem, and no longer rely on the beta grid by installing OpenSim on my computer,and do all of my product testing on /localhost instead. Less headache, more privacy and security with test mesh, textures and such - and no more login problems opensimulator.org Good luck!

My beef is so many female seat positions, and the male ones (if ever) seem exaggerated (draped over furniture, manspreading, etc). Yes, many animations also dont even match the furniture, or do anything but actually sit normal on them. Trying out a chaise in an inworld store - and I sit like a dainty flower... or end up off the chaise lying on teh floor,or leaning up against it - come on creators thats just lazy! Let me sit ON the furniture please LOL

Darrius Gothly wrote: entity0x wrote: The point of this topic is to discuss how we can better organize these things, minimize visual spam and confusion, and add filters and categories to the MP to handle emerging marketing 'schemes'. From where I sit and based on my own personal perception, the "point of this topic" really appears to be you attempting to assert your personal preference on the entirety of the Marketplace. No, you quoted my point, and that is what it is. Alwin Alcott wrote: i think you'r really on a crusade.... most gacha items for sale have a right description, giving it the pic of the set makes it even more clear for the ones that are interested in what collection it belongs. Not really. I just make a case for something and like to be thorough.

Aethelwine wrote: Putting "NOT Gacha" at the end of your search terms should get rid of them, in just the same way that using "NOT demo" gets rid of demos from your search results. Although that is a good tip for everyone in the meantime, a long term solution must be found. Many users are unaware of how to use operators in their search terms, -especially new users. However, using "NOT Gacha" only works on items with gacha in the name, a more permanent category would be needed to negate them in a search. The point of this topic is to discuss how we can better organize these things, minimize visual spam and confusion, and add filters and categories to the MP to handle emerging marketing 'schemes'.

Thank you very much for a more official reply to this issue. In this topic I wanted to discuss Gacha and it's current impact on the MP; 1) My opinion that repetitve Gacha images for multiple products creates visual spam regardless of LL's official guidelines 2) My opinion that I don't like the practice because of this 3) My observation, and discovery of MANY sellers who are in fact breaking guidelines, and my attempted discretion at showing said businesses as an example with blurred images. 4) My appeal that Gacha and reselling schemes get looked at again, and for guidelines to be tightened up or clarified - since this is a relatively new scheme that I have observed lately. 5) I recognize that not ALL Gacha sellers are using the practices I have pointed out, but a SIGNIFICANT portion are. They are even using the same exact images on multiple seller accounts, even found being listed right next to each other in the same listing result. 6) Much like demo/rental items being listed in the $0 category (which are not $0 items as far as users are concerned), also need listing requirements or specific categories to clarify the MP. I understand the MP is a way for everyone to make profits, from chump change to more - but what matters is gaining (and keeping) new users - who I have seen been driven away in droves due to this kind of substandard experience. If it's about profits, that's fine - then keep them around by facilitating an amazing experience for them. I am privy to a large group of people who have entered Second Life and have all left 100% for a variety of reasons, hopefully my posts here demonstrate my willingness to not only improve my own experience (or I will leave too), but for others as well - in all facets of SL. Dakota Linden wrote: The Marketplace Listing Guidelines clearly outlined what is considered spam with regards to Marketplace Listings. https://marketplace.secondlife.com/listing_guidelines#keyword-spam "Item spam is creating more than one product listing for any single item" There is nothing in the Marketplace Listing Guidelines nor in the Linden Lab Terms of Service, that forbids using the same image for multiple listings as long as the image shows the item being sold in the listing. This means that sellers who use a standard Gatcha Key Texture/Picture that show the full set do not violate the rules as long as the item being sold is part of the set. The seller should be very clear on which item or items in the set that the buyer will receive. If the image on the listing does not show the item that the buyer will receive, then the listing can be reported to Linden Lab using the Flag this item link that is located on every product listing on the Marketplace. A product listing with an incorrect image should be reported to Linden Lab as Item Not as Advertised - Incorrect Listing Image.  Ok, so even as spammy as I still think this is, especially when; 1) It is listed 10 times on the MP for each color it comes in 2) The same image and similar descriptions will be used for EACH product in the image - also with possible multiple colors 3) The same image can/will/is used by multiple sellers, creating an exponential presence of said image.... This is acceptable by LL guidelines.  Quite a bit less clear, no product highlight, description only 1) Using multiple images that are, to the eye, exactly the same 2) Tons and tons of products in the same image, no clarification as to which you are actually getting 3) Descriptions only, vary 4) Same image used with multiple products and multiple sellers 5) Opinion: Very spammy. But this is acceptable by LL, correct?  Here is where it gets interesting, and where many people here want to deny there is a problem; 1) Same images used 2) No clarification 3) Description only 4) Same brand, multiple sellers 5) Different prices Anyone can find these examples doing a simple search for [item], put to 96 images per page, click on 'Newest' or "Best Selling" or whatever sorting scheme you want - and find this going on. My position was that many of these sellers and examples are at the least pushing the boundaries of the guidelines, and even going outside of them. It was my opinion only that this is an ugly and spammy practice, and only contributes to the confusion of the average shopper - and annoys the veteran ones. Really, if this is how people like to shop, by making the purchase of a simple item into a Grand Easter Egg hunt, and they want to gamble with their dollars trying to guess which item they get, and having to search through multiple sellers and repeated images and listings for the same exact product - all power to them. For the rest of us, it amounts to effective (not LL legal) spam, and either the practice needs to be strictly monitored, or another way of sorting these products so as not to turn the MP into an ugly cesspool. Much like those spamming demo and rental products using the $0L Category - which is also currently acceptable, but also pushes at the boundaries and guidelines and also creates effective (not LL Legal) spam, we need a way to keep products in the categories they truly belong in - especially if it's filters or other methods. THank you for your reply.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote; I would love to hear your honest, ethical, transparent reply to being caught out in a BOLD FACED LIE. After reviewing what you said, I looked over my materials to see what the problem was, because I honestly did not know what I did wrong.I corrected the issues, hopefully, if there is any - so what's the problem now? Any further explanation as to why I used the store name that I did,and how I title things on the internet would just amount to defending myself unnecessarily against a retard like you, and you wouldn't comprehend it anyway If I am in contravention of any of SL's TOS, I'm happy to correct the situation. You keep trying to imply that I am dishonest in my dealings, derailing my topic to suit your own need to dominate others - and trying to find fault in others, instead of building them up. It's people like you that drive others away from Second Life with your hostile and snide manner of conversing, and your constant personal and unprovoked attacks. Now, if there is no other possible contravention of SL rules that you see, feel free to inform me, otherwise get back on topic - or get out Now watch where you are treading. By posting my store images and making public accusations instead of Pming me any problems you see (which would be helpful), you decided to attempt to publicly shame and cause damage to my reputation and intent as a merchant on SL. - https://marketplace.secondlife.com/listing_guidelines#abusive-behavior Also, you need to start checking yourself when participating in posts on this forum in the future, as you are clearly, blatantly and repeatedly in contravention of these forum guidelines; Off Topic Content: Please keep your commentary relevant to the discussion and within the format that the forum, board or question and answer area require. (For example, in the Answers section, please follow the Q&A format of the discussion.) Content that is blatantly off topic is not permitted. - http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Discussion_guidelines

shushpup wrote: I understand where you are coming from, OP, but I don't really have an issue with what is happening. These items are part of a set (a collection of gatcha) and they are being resold on the marketplace. They are using one image because that is the signage people who are looking for the gatcha are most familiar with. Checking the description almost always clarifies with particular item out of the set is being sold or if it includes the entire set. Also checking the contents tab will reveal which item is included. Lastly, I understand the frustration of the same images but I also don't know how to fix it. I don't think most of the resellers can unpack and photograph these items if they also want to repackage them and sell them as they were originally intended. I could be wrong but I bought a gatcha item and thought of reselling but was flummoxed as to how to get all the items back into one box, especially since the "carrying case" it originally appeared in 'disappeared' once I rezzed it. Everything else was intact but the initial animation stuff is now gone. I do not agree that these listings are spam, but I do think that maybe they should have to be sectioned off or have a checkbox of some sort to filter out all gatcha because for some items, they can overwhelm search results. LIke I said, the listings are kind of on the edge, as there is no real coverage of it in the listing guidelines. The debate seems to be more about what spam means - spam comes in many forms. A possible page displaying similar images (especially if all you are doing is searching gacha) to describe a variety of products (whether detailed or not) is a visual problem - and could amount to visual spam. It's okay though, we all have different opinions on what we will tolerate and thats fine. Your suggestion about adding filters is a good solution, much like a topic I had posted long ago along similar lines regarding the spamming of "Free" or $0L items, but were in fact rentals and demos instead - the consensus is we need filters. I like giving away freebies, and I like recieving them. I certainly don't want to filter through 100's of demo and rental items listed under $0. I also don't want to sort through 15 Gacha listings that 1) May or may not contain the item I want (because some are NOT circled/indicated as some claim) 2) clog up the search listings and 3) Use the same image to describe a package of items. I want clear and concise, and clearly visually differentiating images that show me what the product looks like, then I can click on it to explore further. Gacha is just gacha items - but if we dont address this, they may overwhelm the search results. Unfiltered right now, I always get quite a few per page - enough so that I felt compelled to post this in the first place.

Pamela Galli wrote: <brick wall> A brick wall can't stand long against a good sledgehammer, aka, a good counterargument.

Darrius Gothly wrote: entity0x wrote: Just seems like a horrible system to have in Second Life, and reminds me of the gambling schemes of old. If anything this needs to be observed and strictly enforced, as I can see this could cause great confusion amongst users, and a decline in confidence in shopping in the Marketplace. I'm having a hard time getting amped up or offended (what's the new word ... "triggered") about this issue. I mean, I was probably all of 4 or 5 years old when I learned that those toy machines with all the fancy things showing on the front were in fact loaded with 100's of eggs containing the same stupid 5 page micro-comic or badly cast plastic ring. Once I learned that lesson, I moved on. Very cute. I'm glad you moved on, but what does that have to do with the discussion of the impact these items may have on the Marketplace, particularly with the spammed images I'm mostly talking about, and the multiple uses of the same image but with different products? Darrius Gothly wrote: As others have said in this thread (and others on a similar subject) the presence of Gacha items on the Marketplace is an entirely different animal A different playing field, but similar in practice, and has been well documented as being related to the same style of play using vending machines. For further info on this way of marketing being used in multiplayer online social games by reading the provided ilnks, perhaps you too can come to an understanding about it. Darrius Gothly wrote: Merchants on SLM are resellers and tend to very clearly state the item being sold. And some tend NOT to, and those are the ones I'm addressing - with their use of the same image to depict different products - which are not shoes, nor are they colors of a coat - and therefore DO NOT fall under listing guidelines, or at the least are pushing the boundaries of such. Darrius Gothly wrote: Depending on the image itself is very much like assuming every burger sold by McDonalds will be the same highly stacked and properly delivered gourmet treat shown on the commercials. You gotta read the description, study for a bit ... take your time and make a well-informed choice. Or instead we should encourage merchants to not practice using similar images to mass list separate products, not only creating visual spam, but creating possible confusion and lack of confidence in the Marketplace - You know.. its called good listing practices. Darrius Gothly wrote: Honestly? If you blaze through, barely looking and making decisions on precious little info .. you pretty much deserve to get burned. IMO anyway. I'm glad to see you are speaking honestly now, clarifying that you're following statements made aren't based in the default lies you usually spout out. The words we use... Noone deserves to get burned. The marketplace should be a place that new and old shoppers can go to find what they want, so that their in-world SL experience is fun - and they dont get bogged down by your spammy, unclear and repetitive listings for your newest sales scheme Your thought process has been exposed, and your lack of integrity probably in how you conduct your own business has now been exposed in your statements. Darrius Gothly wrote: BTW: You do know the image in your message footer is missing, right? It's kind of difficult to take you seriously when you haven't taken the time to make sure your own posts are shown properly and without broken stuff. Although irrelevant to the current conversation, and irrelevant to whether you take me seriously or not on the current topic of discussion, thanks for the heads up. Alwin Alcott wrote: think you should use better images here, it's totally blurred. And thats hiding something pretty important: the item description. It's not hiding anything. It's blurred to protect the content of the store(s) and their Gacha listings so they can be used as an example, as well as how the page looks with a random search Alwin Alcott wrote: I very rarely seen cacha items without proper decription on MP. Rarely, is an exaggeration, but at least you recognize that many sellers don't always list cacha items with proper description as to what Item you are getting Alwin Alcott wrote: Yes it uses the same image, because it belongs to a certain collection. If you look for a vase from colelction xyz and the image doesn't show it... it won't sell, a own smaller detailed pic doesn't have the same impact on the buyer as seeing the thing as collection together. So you admit there is use of the same image on repeated listings, which is only reserved and allowed on the MP for items like shoes and clothes that have different sizes or colors. Listing guidelines haven't accounted for this type of repetitive listing, as it is relatively a new scheme going on now,and gaining steam daily - and therefore needs to be addressed. If not addressed, we could face pages of Gacha spam, and unclear listings - which is not what the Marketplace was about when concieved Alwin Alcott wrote: I see totally no harm in the way it's presented. I do, thats why I posted about it, where it came from, how it is currently being used on the MP, and the reasons I believe it doesn't belong on the MP, or at least looked at, and as someone else suggested, perhaps have its own category. Alwin Alcott wrote: Perhaps better keywords in your search will prevent the "issue" you see Irrelevant to the discussion. Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Hold up!!! You come here complaining about merchant in the MP, and yet you are breaking the LL trademark usage rules? You can not use Second Life in any way shape or form. https://secondlife.com/corporate/brand/trademark/unauthorized.php Oo, pray tell, where have I used the Second Life trademark in my materials? Drake1 Nightfire wrote: "No Use in Your Branding. D o not use IN THE NAME of your business, organization, product, or service, and do not register as a trademark, service mark, or business or organization name, any Linden Lab trademark or any words or symbols virtually identical or confusingly similar to a Linden Lab trademark. This includes, but isn't limited to, our Second Life® brand name and our Eye-in-Hand logo." Oo, pray tell, where have I used the Second Life Trademark in the name of my business? I don't even have a business, I have a website and YouTube channel to provide videos for shoppers to view my items. What's the problem? Maybe you're just not good at reading and comprehending things. You sir, are truly a pathetic man. I guess I must have bested your silly arguments and pointed out your lack of knowledge on the subjects presented, and you lash out with yet another personal attack? The difference between you and I is clearly thus; I want to make SL the best place it can be - as I've seen too many good people leave for a variety of issues; that which I have documented in SL forums and others If there is any 'violation' or question of my usage of SL, I would be sure to correct it, as there is no ill intent, no malice, nor any goal of misrepresenting myself, LL, SL or exploiting anyone. I have nothing to fear as I am transparent, honest and ethical. How about you, though? Spica Inventor wrote: L.L. likes transfer items over copy items thinking they will somehow make more money from them. So transfer/no copy items are effectively promoted and heavily sanctioned. Of course the opposite is the case as per usual. (Less money made overall since the vast majority would rather have copy items in most cases as few are entertained by retailing their stuff). That would be fine, LL is allowed to make some money, and how they see fit. We just need to tweak the listing guidelines a little and perhaps add a new category if Gacha is going to stay, so as to minimize the issues I have presented.

Pamela Galli wrote: Also, since mod things with no mod scripts show as no mod in inventory, sometimes buyers think the,whole thing is no mod. That is true, that is why we used the Debug_Permissions feature to ensure we were getting results. I have used EZ-Sit and AvSitter, and they put those flags on your stuff in your inventory, and it really freaked me out because I thought I got locked out of my own stuff for using their stuff Rolig Loon wrote: And the perms on the scripts are set properly? This is VERY strange indeed. I have been scripting in LSL for nine years now, and have never had a script with proper perms do what you are observing. I set perms on scripts for general distribution to Copy/Transfer/NoMod unless there's a good reason to do it differently. Whirly Fizzle wrote: Are you 100% sure that you have set the next owner permissions correctly on the scripts themselves? I'm an idiot if that's all it is. Goes to show the power of learning the wrong information early. I didn't even consider that was even the issue, as I had learned, or misunderstood, the permission system and assumed the script would adopt the same flags as all the linked items. Never felt I had to, but it would explain those issues in the past as well. How I had solved it then - being in a hurry - that setting copy on the script allowed the item to be copied - but from what I had learned it felt wrong, and appeared as though people could copy my scripts and textures contained into the item into their inventory - so I thought that couldn't be good. Now with more advanced scripts and mesh Ideas that I'm working on, this lack of knowlege really blindsided me. So that's great. I just noobed out on all of this... So umm now how to save face? Umm I proved I make a hell of a mean tester?LOL God I suck some times. But you ladies don't suck. Thanks for the help... and i feel stupid. But I'm happy now cuz now I can fix everything and move on with making cool stuff!

"I didn't read your instructions, and the product you are selling doesn't work" 1 star "Oh I was wrong? There was instructions? Ok good" (leaves 1 star review, doesn't apologize)

I feel the same way, and I have nowhere near the experience and years you may have. I'm just starting putting out some stuff that can pass LOD and keep details and such. But yes, it certainly seems like a drag - for me the stress comes over setting the right permissions, and the stupid mistakes that come from that, and having to update an existing on the MP is not easy - one wrong move and that item gets blacklisted forever.

Years after I have joined SL, I'm still wearing mainly non-mesh clothes. Every time I think of spending Lindens on some cool jacket, cape or pants, they never fit right - making me appear bulky or frumpy. In many ways it creates some nice detailed clothing, but there's still a lot to be done using skins and prims, and hybrid with mesh.

Pamela Galli wrote: If not already done: try just the mesh, no scripts or textures. Looks like we were on the right track after all. In my excitement in making my new meshes, I may have incorporated older prim and mesh pieces that I had textured with 'test' textures from the Linden Library section that registers as me not being the owner, as in the example above in my reply to you (please read again, I updated it). This would definitely explain a lot, as in my absence from SL working on 3D skills, I've found multiple textures on different faces I must have missed - and may be causing a problem across many items. Some 100% meshes that are using original baked textures still have this problem, but now I will have to go back and ensure there isn't an errant texture somewhere. Very weird, but this handles half of the problem, especially on older models where this may have been quite a common mistake, and couldn't set copy on those either.. I very much appreciate your help and will keep you both updated. I dont think its the full solution, but it's a start and something I can try. I did already rebuild my newest mesh update to test this, but it had failed on setting copy too. With this new information, I will go back and ensure no errant prims I may have recycled into new builds don't hold textures I didnt' intend. Thanks. UPDATE 10:50am: Nope, not the Linden textures causing the issues. When I add a script, that is when the copy permissions have issues; at least in the products I tested. Original Mesh # 1: Adding a script causes me to not be able to change permissions Original Mesh # 2: Adding a script causes me to not be able change permissions In-World Cubes: Adding a simple script with only llTargetOmega(<1.0,0.0,0.0>, 1.0, 1.0>); causes me to not be able to change permissions. One more thing: in order to ensure it is not LL's starter land regions causing and issue, I also tested the simple cube and script in Premium Sandbox Formosa, with the same results: copy permissions cannot be change after adding a simple script. CONCLUSION: Scripts, even though I create and own them all myself, and even scripts made with simple commands within the object/mesh itself, causes me to not be able to change permissions.

Pamela Galli wrote: Once I had a house go no copy or no mod, can't remember which. I had to investigate every prim, till I found that the permissions on the texture on a butterfly on a rose bush were not full perm to me. Okay, I checked that. I wouldn't expect it to be a problem. I have had a 'free' item using these textures in the past, that now I cannot change permissions to copy on either; Linden Texture: "Rock - White Patches" C/M/T permissions | owner: Alexandria Linden Linden Texture: "AF_woodpaneling.tga" C/M/T permissions | owner: entity0x Linden Texture: "Gravel_45_seamless_256" C/M/T permissions | owner: entity0x The rock texture had been on an experimental mesh I used that I incorporated later and forgot about that texture. However, after correcting that texture, and ensuring I was the owner of all the textures, set the copy bit once again, which was ignored - same result. To ensure there are no texture conflicts, I tested meshes with no textures used also have the same effect - the copy bit refuses to be set or unset. I simply do not have permissions on my own objects to set copy or not, even when I am using my own textures, meshes, and even plainly colored objects. Pamela Galli wrote: Also had another house with a corrupted mega prim floor, which while seemingly full perm to me, would turn the whole house no mode as soon as any prim was unlinked. i had two other things that I could never set correct next owner perms on, never figured out why, but it was when I was a new builder and might just not have know how to look. I appreciate your response, and ensured that I did that. I posted earlier that I recreated an item from complete scratch, from the fresh uploaded mesh, fresh prims I had to use, and fresh scripts to ensure none were corrupted like the original item. The problem persists, the system is ignoring any permission flags I try to set on them - but not on all new prim-based and linked items I did for testing - with those I could change permissions both in the inventory AND in the world. My only guess is that it my own meshes are affected somehow, since it is only doing it with mesh products about 2 weeks old only. That being said, I can't even update OLDER items I have on the MP, as I also can no longer change their permissions either. I have the know-how, that's the thing, this is why this so confusing to me. I thought it was maybe something I forgot to do or was doing something, since I hadn't updated or uploaded much in the last few months, as I was honing my modeling.

Rolig Loon wrote: That's very strange. You've done more exhaustive experiments than I might have thought of. It's time to grasp at straws. Have you tried doing any of those experiments: With a different viewer? Yes. Originally I had followed the instructions using the SL viewer, but the SL viewer didn't allow me to see the slam bit settings on the object in inventory, only when it was rezzed in the world. I switched to Firestorm viewer which allowed me to see it both in rezzed state and in object inventory. That was how I discovered the slam bit was not changing at all (but it did in newly created default cube prims) Rolig Loon wrote: On a different region? Yes. I have also been having problems setting the land of my premium "default" home to my group, which appears to still exist, but I cannot change it's properties either (ex. group image). I can add and remove group members, and they appear to be in the group, but have no permissions to build on my land that I have set to group either. This is why I tried abandoning the land seeing if it was the region glitching permissions, but no - the problem persists The common denominator with these recent issues has been I can't set permissions flags on anything Rolig Loon wrote: With full-perm mesh that someone else made? No, these all involve meshes, textures and scripts I have created myself and uploaded into Second Life. Items I have created, uploaded and put to market from 2 weeks ago don't have these issues, only in the last week's objects seem to be affected - I've had to unlist about 10 items because they have their permissions incorrect - thought I know for a fact I shouldn't have set them incorrectly in the first place. SUMMARY: I cannot set any permissions on existing items I have made, either in the inventory or already existing on the marketplace. I had uploaded items to update old items, and uploaded new ones, but none of them have the permissions I know I set - and I cannot change the permissions on existing items that I copy back into my inventory and test there... Ironically, if I leave the Transfer flag on but not the copy flag, the next owner has transfer.... lol

UPDATE: 9pm PST 04.30.16 So I've followed the instructions on the Debug Permissions page, and followed the instructions; "The important lesson here: if you can avoid it, do NOT change an object's permissions when it's in your inventory. If you do, be sure to rez it to apply ("slam") those permissions, then take the resulting copy." So I dragged a copy to rez, changed the permissions, deleted the old inventory item, and saved the copy with the proper permissions. However the change is still ignored. The slam-bit refuses to register the changes?  So permissions in-world are correct. Saving the object to inventory with correct permissions is not changing the slam bit The item when rezzed again, shows correct permissions (to me) The item shared with an alt that has correct permissions, still denies copy and mod permissions to New Owner Changing the slam bit in inventory, then rezzing it to 'apply' the changes, and saving the resultant copy, shows slam bit changes, but when rezzed by alt/customer still denies copy/mod. These issues do not seem to have a problem with test cubes... Update: 9:37pm Changing permissions on simple cubes are as expected. Even changing them in inventory (the wrong way) still gains the results I would expect following the guidelines. On mesh however and linked meshes I have made, the permissions are ignored. I was, in fact doing it correctly, but still not getting the permissions one would expect. Update: 10pm Yep nothing works. Unlinking objects, rebuilding objects,etc. Any pre-existing linked object products simply ignore permissions changes, no matter what. Update: 11pm:  Rebuilding items from the base meshes, with fresh scripts, objects and such, and setting copy/mod permissions on the newly created and 'pure' objects does nothing. Permissions will not change. Slam bit still registers non-copy, and customer says no-copy still.

Rolig Loon wrote: See my answer to your identical question at https://community.secondlife.com/t5/Creation/Is-there-any-reason-why-I-can-t-set-copy-mod-permission-on-my/qaq-p/3026339 Rolig Loon wrote: I suspect that you have been setting permissions on the objects while they are still in your inventory, which means that they will not become effective until they are rezzed. The next owner will not see the perms you have set. The way to beat that is to be sure to set perms only on objects that are in world. Yes! This may be the case. I may have been doing that lately and/or on past objects that may be causing this. On my tests of course, I set the properties on the test cubes in the world, and not in my inventory, so never thought it would make a difference. In the past, because of the same issue, I would change the properties of the object in my inventory list, then upload it back up to the MP, unaware this would not change a thing. I will double check this Rolig Loon wrote: Also, set the Advanced Permissions option in your Build menu so that you see not only the normal perms but also the slam bit that indicates whether the next owner perms are effective or not. Read more about that at http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Debug_Permissions . Finally, before you put a product on the market, have your alt or a friend double check the perms, even if you are sure that they are correct. Yes, thank you very much for your help. I will update you here with my results asap.

 What is up with permissions? I recently spent some time away honing my meshcraft and have returned with a vengeance to create new objects for SL and update the older ones with newer mesh, etc. Suddenly my new items don't want to cooperate with the permissions I give them, and new owners are finding they can not copy or modify the items, even though the permissions have been set. When testing on cubes and such, I don't seem to have any issues, the permissions are as I have set them. These seems to affect my own meshes, some even being simple 'lantern' meshes with simple script. All meshes, textures, and scripts are owned by me, so what could possibly be the problem?  So far I have connected all my meshes as desired, then set the copy/mod permissions. However, customers and tests with an alt clearly show they are getting no copy or mod permissions. What is going on? Thanks for your help. SOLUTION: Ensure you have copy permissions on each script,image,notecard, animation, etc if you wish for the object to be copied. On some of my older products, I had used scripts in individual child prims (linkset) that I had negated to set copy permissions on. Also, when adding my own animation/sit poses in some products, I had dragged them from my inventory into the object and also not setting copy permissions on those. Also, instead of putting animation scripts like llSetTextureAnim in individual linked items, consider activating them from your master script using llSetLINKTextureAnim (for example). This cuts down on permission errors (and time) by having to go back and check individual prims in your linkset. Thanks for all that helped.

On my new freebie aquarium, people are reporting that there is no copy permission on the object,yet I have set it to be so. I own and have created each piece and mesh and texture and script in the object, yet it still lists to the customer that it is [no copy , no mod and no transfer] A test with an alt has verified no copy permissions, though it is set. What am I doing wrong? This is happening with other recent items.. I set the permission, yet the test avatar sees it still as no copy, no modify. These objects also have scripts in them that I own, I dont have to set their permissions too after linkin everything do I? So confused now. Thanks for your advice

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: People have been reselling Transfer items since XStreet days What does that have to do with the current discussion of Gacha items and they way they are listed, and use repetitive images to advertise different items? Plenty of Transfer items are resold, but in a modified state, with new textures, included in builds,etc, and certainly don't use the same images or tactics the current Gacha trend is Drake1 Nightfire wrote: I have remains civil, you however have made snide comments time and time again about "using google' and "reading the whole page" as if i am an idiot. My intention is not to portay you as an idiot. However, when your responses to my posts demonstrate that you have a lack of knowledge or investigation into a matter, I will have to address it. In order to have a constructive conversation, we must agree to the terms, definitions and concepts presented. Also, if I provide a source for my arguments, it is because I want you to understand where I am coming from, and to understand the concepts presented. Responding as quickly as you do, and the way you ignore points made, makes it seem you have no interest in learning about, or discussing anything It seems you give yourself a pass though, when it comes to asserting the attitude and technical skill of others in dealing with the marketplace usage or other. Perhaps if you stuck to addressing the points made, either agreeing or disagreeing with them - and supporting your statements, you might be able to convince me of your position Drake1 Nightfire wrote: less than 4% of items pop with the search of gacha.. Hardly the whole MP turning into a flea market, considering a lot of those are the machines themselves. Quoting a percentage is irrelevant, unless you consider the fact that 4% of 100 items is only 4. If the total number of Gacha items were to increase to 1 Million, then 4% would still make a significant impact on the appearance, maintenance, organization, presentation and usage of the SL Marketplace. Where did you get the 4% statistic from? Do you have a source for this claim? Drake1 Nightfire wrote: you can not equate what a gacha is in RL to what is in SL. The ones in RL are part of a larger system and have extra benefits to various games.. The ones in SL are more like a random item giver. Ok, so your response is a good example of how you demonstrate that you have not read the sources I have provided, or have some other obstacle I am unaware of that does not allow you to comprehend the content of said articles. If you truly had read the articles in their entirety, in order to expand your knowledge on the subject, you would not have made the statement you just did. The principles of gashapon in RL and in SL are exactly the same. One pays for a random item, in hopes of it being a rarity, similar to the vending machines you can find in any convenience store today. For online usage, it has been determined by many authorities to be considered gambling, and an undesired activity - especially where children are involved. In fact you keep emboldening the stupidity of the system, by constantly admitting the Gacha scheme is full of 'crap', and that it 'offers random items. I am not sure why such activity should be allowed on the Marketplace, for the reasons I have listed and clearly supported previously - that which you have summarily ignored in order to just repeat yourself. Drake1 Nightfire wrote: They (gacha item listings) are not Spam. They do not fall under any definition of spam by LL standards.  Technically no, not at this time. I have demonstrated, however, how the Gacha scheme and the listing practices of said scheme could possibly damage the MP, as well as how they are definitely pushing at the fringes of the TOS. Since the products are not shoes or coats, nor have anything to do with color or size, and IN FACT are advertising different items, but using the same images - creating image spam and non-clarity on the MP, that they COULD and MAY be outside the guidelines Repeating yourself that it is not spam does nothing to support your argument, as you make no statements to explain why. Perhaps you are here just to fight, and not learn from discussing issues with others Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Coming to the forums to talk about it and effect change is foolish. How so? Elaborate. Drake1 Nightfire wrote: LL does not pay a lick of attention to the forums. What Linden Labs does or not do is irrelevant. We are the participants, creators and users of Second Life. We make or break this experience with what WE do, or don't do, and how we treat others who want to discuss SL issues. Its not Linden Labs selling copyrighted items, spam items, and stupid Gacha sales schemes. That comes from the merchants of SL themselves. This is why I tackle these issue with YOU and other users themselves, down at the grass roots. Unless you can demonstrate that it is LL promoting things - the responsibility for the success and enjoyment of SL falls on you and I. I'm looking forward to the future of SL - and what it offers both users and creators alike, hence why I participate on forums and discussions, to affect change one on one. What has been your purpose here, in this topic and others, other than to attempt to stifle and discourage discussion?

 'Gacha" and "Gasha" are shortened versions of 'gashapon" and 'gachapon" and orginated from vending-machine-dispensed capsule toys. "The terms gashapon (ガシャポン?) or gachapon (ガチャポン?) refer to variety of vending machine-dispensed capsule toys popular in Japan and elsewhere. " "Gashapon" is a Japanese onomatopoeia composed of two sounds: "gasha" (or "gacha") for the sound of a crank on a toy vending machine, and "pon" for the sound of the toy capsule dropping into the receptacle. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gashapon Kompu gacha, or “complete gacha” is a monetization mechanic in social games that heavily incentivizes the practice of gacha — paying a small amount of money to get an item at random, similar to purchasing toys from a vending machine. Japan’s Consumer Affairs Agency has officially declared kompu gacha illegal. Jin Matsubara, Japan’s minister of state for consumer affairs and food safety said “significantly increasing the passion for gambling is not appropriate to the education of children.” - http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/japan-officially-declares-lucractive-kompu-gacha-practice-illegal-in-social-games/525608 If you had read the entire wiki page from top to bottom, your understanding of where 'Gacha' and "Gasha" came from, and further used Google to expand your knowledge on the matter, you will find that each spelling is dependent on the source of the Gacha scheme. The vending machine Gacha is fine, but the use of such in online multiplayer games, that group which SL belongs to, has been outright banned in Japan, because it is recognized as gambling. Such machines in the game world I wouldn't trust anyway, and don't think belong in SL. And they most certainly don't belong on the SL Marketplace. Drake1 Nightfire wrote: It's not spam... Once again, you seem to not understand what 'spam' is. When a seller posts multiple listings using the SAME image, usually consisting of images of 20 products, but only 1 is available, and only 1 item of the picture is presented, AND can be found repeating the same images for 20 products in the search window... looks like spam to me..  Which product is which? I see 5 images listed: Each image has a teapot, an ornamental frog, a lunchbox, a spatula and a dandelion in a vase. Each image is exactly the same. There are 10 other images of other sets on the same page, with the same arrangement and color hue and style. No defining picture to separate one product from the other. Which image do I click on to get the ornamental frog? All the images are the same. Ok, this must be the ornamental frog. Or is it? **bleep**, I clicked on the lunchbox listing.. **bleep** these images! Why is this not spam? You seem to keep asserting it is not spam, when the use of similar images to promote different items (as in advertising that ONE item in the picture of 20 items - the re-using this image in multiple listings creates VISUAL spam), then it cannot be good for a online marketplace, which needs to be clean and efficient for finding items. Drake1 Nightfire wrote: ... and you had better not flag it as such. That would be an abuse of the reporting system. If one were to report the numerous and growing listing infractions on the marketplace, it would be a full time job. No. Instead I come to the forums to talk about it, and hopefully affect change, or at least see other opinions on the matter. However, with a loose interpretation and tightening up of policies, the listing practices of many Gacha sellers, especially in the aspect of image representation could be very well going outside the guidelines of proper listing practices - or getting very near it. For example, from the "Item or Keyword Spam" listing of the SLMP guidelines; "Item spam is creating more than one product listing for any single item, and will not be tolerated." - https://marketplace.secondlife.com/listing_guidelines#keyword-spam "Clear variations of an item, for example, an item offered in multiple sizes (such as small, medium, and large shoes), or an item offered in multiple colors (such as a blue and black sport coat), are, however, allowed and are not considered item spam" - https://marketplace.secondlife.com/listing_guidelines#keyword-spam  Does the multiple listings of a gacha pack, which can have 20 items using the same images, and is not a 'clear variation', not have a spam or negative effect on marketplace shopping? This simple image was a quick example, but on some pages, especially under the 'newest' setting and on 'show 96 images per page', there is CLEARLY multiple listing with the same images being presented, with no CLEAR VARIATION between the products being sold. Gacha packs are not 1) Multiple colors of the same item or 2) Multiple sizes of the same item. Therefore, Linden Labs should consider revising their listing practices to accomodate Gacha, or disallow it altogether, as it creates spam of images, and repetition of items being sold, and multiple sellers selling, and reselling the same items. Drake1 Nightfire wrote: No, people can now resell the gatcha items they don't want on the MP.. Users can sell the items they don't want and become a merchant. Merchants can sell the items they don't want and stay merchants... Gatcha sales are like a big flea market.. So then yes, it is a sales scheme, by definition. This scheme doesn't sound good at all. It is going to cause a lot of spam on the marketplace, repeated listings of the same product, repeated images of the product, and multiple sellers selling the same items. When did the marketplace turn into a flea market, instead of a place to purchase items that users have made, presumbably out of originality, creativity and imagination? -------------------------------------------- To summarize my response to you, I believe that the listing practices of the Marketplace need to be looked at, especially with this new wave of Gacha type of advertising, selling and reselling, and the spam that it creates on the MP, both in the use of the same images on multiple listings (some up to 20 listings for the same 'pack). Many MarketPlace search suggestions have been made by other posters on this forum in the past, and improvements will come, and I will be here to put my 2 cents in. I'd just appreciate a little more patience from you or others before making assumptions and personal attacks, and to remain civil in these discussions.

Pamela Galli wrote: And once again you demonstrate that you are impervious to enlightenment. Once again, you demonstrate how you cannot simply participate in a conversation properly and instead resort to unwanted and antisocial personal attacks. If you have no comment or opinion on the original post, keep your assumptive and inflammatory responses to yourself. Torrie Mint wrote: I know what you mean I was looking for some stuff for a little coffee shop set-up I had on my home sim and good lord page after page of rare Gacha stuff buildings cups bikes complete and not complete set-ups after about page 5 I gave up and built it myself. When they say rare it is that because it will be rare they get any of my linden but the couple times I have played them I set a limit for how much I'm willing to lose and play. If I get what Im trying for before my limit good for me. If I get junk I dont want I just delete it. I have no problem flushing unwanted gacha stuff down the trash can. Just seems like a horrible system to have in Second Life, and reminds me of the gambling schemes of old. If anything this needs to be observed and strictly enforced, as I can see this could cause great confusion amongst users, and a decline in confidence in shopping in the Marketplace.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: entity0x wrote: What is Gacha Suddenly I'm coming across a lot of products with the same image over and over again, and an influx of 'gacha' based item sales. This can't be good for SL. Since when is purchasing things you don't know what you will receive, basically equating to gambling on the marketplace acceptable? But, you know what you will receive.. one of the items listed. Its kind of like a claw machine game.. On a practical note, many stores are opening up to do the very same thing, which appears to be a reseller type of money profiteering venture. This is filling up many sections with spam images that are all the same, yet sell different kinds of items. It's not spam and you had better not flag it as such. That would be an abuse of the reporting system. Is this where we are heading are sales schemes now? No, people can now resell the gatcha items they don't want on the MP.. You couldn't do this with the previous version. Thanks for your feedback and consideration on this issue. What are the benefits to SL users and merchants alike to have this now? Users can sell the items they don't want and become a merchant. Merchants can sell the items they don't want and stay merchants, i guess. Gatcha sales are like a big flea market.. Wander around hoping to find something useful in all the crap. As to the title of the OP.. No we really don't need to talk about it.. And it isn't spam. Before anyone says anything i have seen it spelled with and without the T. I have seen it spelled as Gotcha and Gocha as well.. We really need to come together and have one spelling.. Oh we do need to talk about it, and will, if people want to. You will not dictate what gets talked about on a public forum. You can put to rest your concern with the spelling, as a simple Google search for yourself would have gained you a quick answer, and the realization that the term 'gacha' I used, is correct. -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gashapon Having a flea market idea is fine in theory, as one would 'wander' about a sim seeking little treasures not found elsewhere or even on the marketplace, and in limited quantities. A 'flea market' reselling of items on the marketplace is not where it should happen - even if it is popular. It's cluttering up the search engines with a lot of 'crap' - as you have defined it - so needs to be addressed. When one searches the marketplace for a certain item, very, very many results are from seeminly unrelated or unable-to-ascertain the actual relevance of the Gacha type listings. You will find many times that there may be 20-30 Gacha and similar sales schemes and their images cluttering up their page. Since each image is EXACTLY the same, the ad made in haste and laziness, and each item's product is not CLEARLY displayed or even described, and when done repeatedly is called 'spam'. Are people all that desperate for money that they are willing to destroy the convenience and use of the marketplace to find things they want to use in SL?