Love Zhaoying

Prok mentioned that others (such as his son) have rights and took the box into their inventory and re-rezzed it. That certainly would look like a change of ownership, right? Sure looks like a possible root cause. I guess the only mystery to me then is, why script reset wasn't working (unless they were also trying the transfer / take / rerez after script reset).

If resetting the script did not change it, then it appears the permissions are not persisting across states. @Rolig Loon, was there any use-case / scenario where just "requesting" permissions in a state "validates" the permission? I seem to recall (perhaps it was with animations). My point being, could there be a 1-line code fix in the "subordinate" states of just requesting the permission again?

Ok, missed that. ETA: Only saw the "take into inventory and re-Rez".

@Rolig Loon, do you agree that "broken" instances of the running script (current version without changes) probably won't work without a script reset to request the permissions again? Unless this issue is due to some LL hiccup that will fix itself (not likely since it's permissions)..

I kept scanning the code for "anything web" and couldn't see anything at all. Thanks, thought maybe there was some web calls I missed since they wrote: ..I assumed some non-LL site was meant.

How is School Spirits? I've watched the others and am only behind on Mandalorian.

Scraping your "picks" (you wrote "pics", which usually means "pictures"..) is completely different than recording and reporting your actual in-world location when a Bot "detects" you there.

I don't think you've mentioned - is the script asking you initially for Debit permissions? If not, that explains it: Let us know if you've tried resetting the script and if it works then - if so, that may indicate "existing running instances of the script forgot debit permissions". Sorry, it was not clear from this what you tried: whether you tried resetting the script and if that worked.

I think that we are lucky fortunate that Bots do not in general appear to be collecting information on "Where avatar XXXX was seen". So, they are not posting on Victual Sucrets how many times we frequent seedy venues (i.e. as Popeye mutters in pre-Hays Code cartoons, "Houses of ill repuke").

At first glance, I don't see any XML-RPC code. It certainly requests positions. My initial thought is, the script is losing / forgetting it's (money / debit owner) permissions between states. I say this because, the permission requests are in state "default", but the "not-working" llGiveMoney() is in another state. I suspect someone with more time will do some testing for you. Just in case, have you noticed if it may be working in some "release channel" regions but broken in other "release channels"? (If the "broken server code" is now in "all channels", you wouldn't find it working anyplace.) Sorry I can't be more help but - I predict my suggestion will give others ideas.

Peeve: Not knowing if true immortality is achieved by arguing on the Forum, or if it merely seems to go on for all eternity.

When he decides to lay in the road at 1:30am.

It also doesn't mean it's not still being collected! But if they are collecting bees, I hope they are at least wearing appropriate protective gear. Those bee stings can hurt.

Pet Delight: Started testing / debugging the main Parse functions in my new language parser LSL script today!

As a worshipper of Shiva, I sometimes get a "jolt" when I see song titles like this! I've done lots of Shiva Bhajans, Kirtans, Shlokas, Mantras, Mala Japa, etc.

I'm sorry, but this comes across as if you do not have much faith that LL will "do the right thing". If that is the case, I am sorry you feel that way - and hope that you are both proved wrong, and also pleased by LL's actions in the (hopefully) near future.

Ad hominem attacks: if what is said is not true, why let it bother you? If you think someone is intentionally trolling, why let it bother you? Thanks for your reply, which sure seemed as long as my own. While I am by NO means any type of moderator, I appreciate your contributions to the Forum and always learn something from what you post.

I do hope they take every testing opportunity, after the last few recent disasters (scripts wouldn't run, etc.). To that end, "it takes as long as it takes". Definitely saw the new "ban the bots" function in RC notes..?

Quick! Hide your kittens, and call the ASPCA!

Sorry, missed your post. Luckily, someone quoted you! You make a lot of assumptions. I explained very, very carefully and clearly to Scylla my reaction to the post in question. Please don't take this the wrong way, but the path of assumptions you were taking, may have been leading you astray of both my meaning, and my intent. As an aside, I do agree that from a certain perspective, using the term "paranoid" does seem insulting. However, from an "outsider's" perspective, it seems pretty obvious that most everyone who is reacting so very strongly seems just a tad "over the top". So from that perspective, I can see why an "outsider" may seem dismissive and use terms that could seem offensive - such as "paranoid". After all, it's just a "game". And, we've been told repeatedly that the information in question is public. So far as I understand, these are "facts". What would I do? As a landowner: Guess I'd set my land to "PIOF", given no other options. As a merchant? I'm not a merchant, and that side of the discussion is newer to me- I have no skin in that game. So, I can only try to do what I suggest others do: attempt to understand other's point of view, and be supportive.

A break from SL sometimes is needed, but be assured it's not you, it really is "them". Wow! I wonder who in the world would get sales figures from that website? How irresponsible that would be!

Cool! Experience says, we can keep going as long as we like. Thanks for asking!

Candor. Honesty. Unabashed telling of one's own point of view. A thirty-thousand feet view, as if by an outsider who has not read our multitude of posts on the topic, and so lacks the context of "why it matters". Let me know if that is sufficient. I didn't say that I "agreed" with their opinion, or even - your word - that I "approve" of it. Just that I "respect and elevate" it. (Would you prefer if I disrespected their opinion, and tried to suppress it?) ETA: Sorry, I didn't know it was our role to "approve" or "disapprove" of other's opinions. My education must be sorely lacking in that regard!

Perhaps we could try signing the Bots up for multiple subscriptions to Sales notices? They may find that both interesting and informative.