Codex Alpha

The problem with many Gacha listings, (as I have posted about in this forum), is that they're frequent use of similar images can lead to mispurchases of items you may expect. Also, on the seller end, I can imagine it can be quite confusing over 30 items being listed - using similar product images - and possibly uploading the wrong image (circled or indicated). In other words, it could be an honest mistake, and since it is a Gacha item, sold in limited quantities, and could disappear quicker than the merchant realizes. You are correct though in expecting a response, but since many Gacha items already are accompanied with a 'no refunds' kind of policy, perhaps the seller simply doesn't care to address it. Thats the risk of Gacha, and on the seller's end - a greater risk of getting mixed up when listing multiple products using the same product image.

OzwellWayfarer wrote: I think there are two important factors when it comes to explaining the expecting 5 stars thing. First, reviews are pretty rare these days. Some of the oder products on the marketplace have 500+ reviews. Even the most popular products are lucky to hit 100. Second, people generally use the review system if they love something, or HATE IT!!!!! Very few people will leave a review if they are merely satisfied. Together, I think that leads some to obsess over their ratings, and fair and ballanced or not, a string of "poor" reviews will have a real impact on sales. Yes, this is why YouTube eliminated the star system for a more simplified thumbs up/down system, because people generally voted on extreme poles anyway. For myself, I dont care about the thumbs up and down, I want to know WHY on both accounts. I WANT to be the best i can be at this and I WANT constructive feedback. It doesn't hurt my feelings if someone doesn't like something of mine - art is in the eye of the beholder. Its far worse to not know WHY, becaue perhaps the issue could be accomodated or at least fixed, and everyone is happy

Thank you for your perspective, you summed it up nicely. In general, leaving a review, especially a helpful and honest review, is usually met with snarky or hostile responses. I would love to leave reviews - I love to recieve feedback and I like to give it - for the betterment of all and the improvement of my products and others. However, the hostility and snarkiness is not worth the trouble. I am a reviewer that makes full use of the star system, and doesn't just use 1 star or 5. 1 star is reserved for absolutely terrible or misleading, or outright fraud, and I will RARELY leave a 5 star because I reserve that for somethign TRULY amazing. Usually I will rate 4 stars if there is room for improvement, 3 if there is some severe issues.. never have gone below that. However, the outrage suffered by the merchants I DO review can get quite nasty. I can return to SL with IM chats of threats and vitriol, wanting to give my money back to remove the review (which is NOT a reasonable response, because I actually want the product to be fixed/improved), or even spamming of messages and accusations that this is my ALT making reviews. A merchant of an in-world 'animating' program even went so far as posting private conversations on his blog site in order to embarrass me off the review site - in some attempt of shaming me for a bad review. Out of 10 or so reviews I have made in SL products, I would say I have only had 2 or 3 reasonable responses, thanking me for my feedback. The rest were downright snarky and hostile, some DEMANDING that I should have sent a notecard to them FIRST before leaving a review (which I am under no obligation). It is amazing to me how tenaciously some merchants fight over substandard products and are willing to attempt to destroy my standing on the MP community by w/e means at their disposal. I must say it DOES work smashingly. Why leave a more than fair review up on a product when the drama isn't worth dealing with. I now default to NO reviews, and I would encourage people to do the same. Most reviews are now 1 star or 5 star anyway, and offer no real perspective at all.

I believe LL has all but abandoned any policing of marketplace content, most likely due to rampant corruption of all sorts, the complaints probably outweight the manpower able to deal with them. My biggest gripe right now is keyword spam. Many are using keywords they should not for many products, and are severely muddying up the search results because of it.

Answer their review. I've had people with "Environment Lighting" turned off that said my light was a scam, or gave a lower rating because the item was not a MOD permission on it. Responding to them is not really effective, because I don't even think they even know the post was responded to, so its only function is to inform future buyers of the reviewer's mistake or beef, and how you are working to remedy it.

Generally you should be fine unless the original company believes that a potential client can reasonably confuse your company for theirs. A simple Google search shows up many 'Kyoob' s anyway, so you're probably fine. If you're name is a play on "cube", you could just create a variant on it like Qyoob, Kyube, Kyuub, Xube, or w/e. If you like what you got, go with it, good luck

A simple Google search and even on the SL LSL wiki site you can find several. You will need to still understand what the scripts are doing, and some are very bloated or use old and longer methods. In a nutshell, you can control those properties of an object with one main LSL function; http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/LlSetPrimitiveParams related; (llSetLinkPrimitiveParams), (llSetPrimitiveParamsFast), (llSetLinkPrimitiveParamsFast) By using flags and parameters you can change any property of an object you would like. There are several examples and scripts to download or reference, but it is always better to try to create your own script so that they are not as verbose as the available 'free' ones.

i've also had the fortune of getting ripped off by a seemingly 'serene' themed rental group renting mall space on a sim similar in name to "Big Island", who took $150L . Good thing I only bought a week. After depositing the $L in the vendor box, and sending a notecard to the host (who seemed to be a well-established member with 1000s of group members), not a word back about it, so I guess I'm out. I'm just not going to use vendor boxes now. Good luck to all you legits that provide them, this being the second time hosed inworld by allegedly reputable groups, cant trust them anymore.

If I use Qavimator, I should always save to *.anim to preserve the animation so I can edit it later, right? Sorry to ask, never knew I could upload *.anim to SL, I always assumed BVH, because Qavimator says "Export for 2nd Life" and saves it as BVH.

Aileen Aiten wrote: This may just be me, and i could be off on a rant here, but it seems that LL has changed the way they process credits. Now, instead of a flat percentage rate, they have added a minimum fee.. For those cashing out large sums, i'm sure it's not that big of a deal, but for those who wish to cash out a little here and there, it can be quite perterbing. The second part to this, is the announcement (if you can call a small blog post in the missle of freaking nowhere) states the changes are due to the insurmountable ammount of red tape they must navigate to make sure there's no money laundering going on, and to get payments to different countries.. I highly doubt those two claims are nearly as significant as they make them out to be, as most banks, and payment services just require the transfer to be from a legitimate source (i.e. LL's accounting offices, or bank etc) As for the money laundering claim, while technically pheasable, unless LL watched every L sent, recieved, and source of injection into the accounts of each person (which they probably do anyway) It's reasonable to think that tracking laundering would begin at the deposit, not the export section of the transaction.. And really, how would one know money is being laundered, unless it comes from a known source.. i.e. a known cartel bank or something random. There is also a claim, that these changes would expedite transfers. Instead of taking 7 business days, they should take on average 2.. I'm not sure about anyone else, but i have NEVER had a cretid process take less than 2 weeks. Not once. So the 7 day claim must be for special, or preferential people. As for the 2 days claim.. Yea, we all know that's not happening. So what is the reality behind the changes? Could it be LL simply wants to snatch a bit more from the little guy, while trying to maintain favor whith those to cash out more? I mean, really, it seems like a tax on those who are trying to pull out the leaste, while capping the rate, allows those who cash out more, to keep more of it. I don't know. And this could all be in my head, but i've seen too many business use creativly worded ToS updates to basically pilfer from those who they deem lesser prone to action. Regardless of their intent, the end result is that yes, it does deter the little guy from cashing out as often. I'm one of the 'little guys' who uses the meagre Lindens I do make at this point to re-invest into learning/making new products, and funding uploads and such into SL. Currently I cannot afford or warrant renting land at current prices, and putting higher tax on selling products to fund such an endevour is only going to delay that. Yes, the extra charges always hit the little guy first, as the 'cash-out' power at thousands of lindens is much lower than 100's of thousands - we each must withdraw as we need, though I'm not against minimums or even monthly restrictions. The charges and subsequent levies, and current price of $L means you net about $3 or less per 1000L you cashout now. My credit processes usually take about a week still, I have never seen 2 days.

Looks like most of the issue was returning to older items I had created and wanted to 'optimize' and had used scripts I needed in child linked prims. I had already moved on using llSetLink-based scripting, but had forgot the older ones were not as efficient. Thanks for all your help, it is always much appreciated.

Fenix Eldritch wrote: So my question is this: Is there any reason why I shouldn't use the method on the left (and center) for keeping the face count down? Is there any drawback to not having the geometry completely connected at every vertex? (is there a phrase for this?) I am responding as an intermediate user of Blender, and certainly not an expert (yet). Others can jump in and correct or add to my statements as they need. First off, it is good practice to have your model faces divided into quads, even if Second Life pretty much is going to triangulate your model when you upload it. Second, keep in mind that if you use/mark seams in Blender on the object, they might as well not be connected together, as apparently Blender treats it like a mesh split and doubles the vertices in essence. Third, because of inevitable seams and UV unwrapping, having it one piece may not help you anyway, and you're doing extra work and possibly warping your surfaces with n-gons (faces with more than 4 vertices). So one could debate if creating an object in one mesh - or 'shell" (Maya), or 'island' (Blender) - matters, since UVing the piece is technically going to break it up and separate areas of the mesh anyway Apparently, every newbie believes they must make their object out of one continuous/contiguous mesh, then forget their seams and UV unwraps are going to cut and split it anyway If I were to design that same feature that you were,I would design the curved areas and perhaps vertical middle bar together, but create the horizontal cross-bar separately, and the entire thing separate from the wall itself. I would keep each piece in quads, and triangulate if needed (especially cleaning the arch ways). I would CTL-J each piece together instead, and let the vertices float where they may for each component. I do this, because when it becomes time to create lower LODs, each piece of the window can be decimated (removed lines and vertices) much more cleanly and efficiently, almost down to a billboard, without losing too much shape. If you have everything together in one continuous 'shell' or 'island' or 'mesh', decimating it down may be much harder.  For example, when making a simple wood box, I did not make it out of one shell, but rather built it similar to what a carpenter would do.. board by board. I could bevel each piece as I needed, and when lower LOD came, i could decimate them so much easier and they held their shape. I hope I explained myself well enough.

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.