Rick Nightingale

Just as I appreciate having needless and restrictive limits put on me by those who use nonsense excuses to justify it. No-mod does not protect your work. It is absolutely anti-consumer and anti-SL and doesn't even benefit the 'creators' anything like they seem to believe. Those supporting mod perms have been repeatedly told (often in disparaging and insulting ways which clearly is acceptable to those who think that) that we don't need mod perms because we aren't even capable of modifying even the texture on an item without ruining it. In this thread, and many like it in the past. Along with "It's my creation... how dare you want to make it look any different". If that doesn't come across as being 'precious'... I don't know what does. If we aren't capable of modifying a texture without ruining it because it's 'too hard' for us... what's the point of 'getting' that texture, because we can't use it on something else with different mapping? That is even harder! Another example of people in this wanting to have their cake and eat it. If I irritated you by using the word 'precious' - the intent was not to depreciate your work. Did I say anything negative about your work in any way? It was a comment on the behaviour of some regarding their work, not their work itself. You have misinterpreted the point.

It actually isn't; in SL's flawed system a seller has the ability to control me (assuming I buy their no-mod item); I do not have the ability to control them (and do not want to). Perhaps this is a more philosophical view; it comes down to who is trying to control whom. I am not trying to restrict what someone else does with their things. They are trying to restrict me. Saying someone should not be able to control me (by not setting no-mod), is not me trying to control them. It is me trying not to be controlled by them. Those arguing for no-mod in general seem to believe it is their right to be able to control others. I vehemently disagree. Just because the system allows it, doesn't make it right.

But my house and purchases are not an advert for your store, nor is what I am wearing an advert for the clothing store it came from. No-one paid me to advertise it for the seller's benefit. Again that comes back to one of the thread's original points: you want to control what I can do for your benefit.

Now the naughty side of me wants to buy a no-mod artwork, and rez a transparent overlay on it with some graffiti 🤣😈

While I do see the point there to an extent (and genuine art was one of the possible exceptions I made at the start), I think overall that it's a complete non-issue and insults people's intelligence... In all my years in SL I've inspected a lot of things to see who made it, but never because I thought there was something wrong with it. Only ever because I liked it. Has anyone here done it because they didn't like the thing (other than to AR it if appropriate)? Besides, people aren't stupid. If something looks like it might have been modified (and in this specific case, a stretched image is reasonably obvious), they will know.* *Edit to add: and if the mod perms issue were more widely realised, something being modified would not be in any way unexpected.

The enlightened few do... but they are few and far between (and often furry).

If someone is keen enough to steal your textures to go dropping in reader scripts (which as shown isn't effective anyway)... there are far simpler ways to obtain the texture UUIDs. Anything that a viewer can render is trivially easy to extract, so supposed attempts to use no-mod to protect assets only hurts those who aren't trying to steal your precious textures, but just want to be able to use what they bought in the best way for them.

Hmm... so we get yet another largely incorrect reason for makers/sellers to knee-jerk to no-mod and impose restrictions on others' abilities to use what they have bought. I've been using PBR since it was in beta and Kristy's answer is correct.

'Experience' is basically a way of giving some automatic and lasting permissions to scripts, while in a region that the Experience is enabled in. You just accept the Experience once (you get a popup when a script tries to use one on you, like a normal permission pop-up but much bigger and more impressive), and then any script in any object using that experience has those permissions to do things to your avatar without asking again. Once accepted, the Experience is persistent; that is, survives relogs and leaving and re-entering the region, until you revoke it manually. The Experience only works in regions where it is enabled. Specifically, it allows scripts to take over and act on movement controls, attach objects to you, animate you, sit you on an object, teleport you, set/change your environment, and track and control your view camera. All without being asked for any further permissions. It's great for complex hunts and adventures (like the Twisted hunts I miss). I like to combine it with RLV scripting to do even more, but they are two different systems and Experience does not in any way depend on RLV or use it itself. A good example is the AVSit Experience, which simply allows objects using that seating system to attach props to your avatar without asking when you sit on them; once you have accepted the Experience (and if it is enabled for the region, which is easy to do). I like that one... I can sit on my couch and have a wine glass attached without any further to-do.

The only places I've been that offer an Experience on entry, I've no problem accepting. One is a shopping and, I think, RP place (I was there for shopping) and you cannot even enter without accepting it. If it was, let's say, a much more 'adult' place, then I still wouldn't have much issue accepting it and seeing what happens, but I see my avatar as just that, not as me. It's easy enough to retract permission and leave. Even my own land offers an experience... it gives limited access to my click-TP system and warns of some 'demonic' consequences if you wander off the beaten path (nothing nasty; it's all in fun - and should I ever get it finished will be quite impressive I like to think).

Happy (belated) rezday!

Wine menu

Cinco herradura encourages excessive rowdiness. DRUNK

Paper cut

Rule 34. 'nuff said.

I saw that too. It seems a nice way to offer a discount to existing users of the previous version, but is still sort of shady IMO. the T&C says this though: So, providing sellers really do pay for any review, they are doing nothing wrong in SL's view. (Well, it makes more money... of course it's OK) I still think it's on the shady side however it's done, because as stated above by more than me, I think that once a gain is involved, there's going to be a skew towards positive.

Yes, but in this case the refund is only given to the first ten people to leave a review; those are typically left within less than a minute of the group announcement. No way people have even unpacked it before leaving that 5* review. I hate those contests where it's just a pure popularity contest, but them I'm autistic so am at a clear disadvantage there. There's one I do every year with multiple categories; one is just how many votes you get. One particular person, from the start to end of the contest, practically lives there and brings in everyone they can find to vote for their entry. They almost always win that category. Such is life, lol. I guess it makes them happy.

I would guess that even with time to try a product and no stipulation that it must be a positive review, there's extra influence on the purchaser to make it positive. If only because of the warm and fuzzy feeling that the maker is giving one something and not wanting to rock the boat. It's also a bit unfair on makers who perhaps don't have enough sales to justify giving product discounts like that. I have a product I've sold for years in several iterations; I've sold many thousands. I know for a fact that most people are very happy with it (and a lot have messged me to say so, or ask for help and tell me they like it) yet I have very few reviews on it. I've had almost as many bad ones from people who can't read the simplest of instructions and immediately jump on review to say "it's rubbish and doesn't work" rather than open the NC or ask for help (as instructed in the advert). It's difficult getting reviews, but that's the way it is.

I guess it depends how it's done. The one I mentioned certainly will prompt reviews that are meaningless. The stuff is usually of good quality (not perfect, but up there with the best) but still, leaving a review before even trying on the product I think is out of order.

Agreed; there are some high-profile makers that have been doing that for many years. One commonly announces refunds in their group for the first reviewers on a new launch. For that particular one there's no way to even have time to unpack the purchase before leaving a review to get in fast enough to 'win'.

Finally, a native giraffe SINGS

Lemurs arrived, unleashing great HAVOC.

...passing a unicorn, standing ERECT.

Sticky fingers (Rolling Stones)

Catfish only use numbers to THREE.