Pandora Nova

Only LL could track with stealthed attachments, because only Grid Scope experiences could do that. For any normal experience, objects attached with llAttachToAvatarTemp stop working once you leave the experience region. They're also supposed to automatically detach but they sometimes get stuck, the scripts definitely stop working though. What's more, the script even stops working if you go from one region with the experiences enabled to another region with the experience enabled, but not always, which is a major nuissance for experience HUDs on RP sims. As for griefing and tracking, all of that can be done with the same efficacy without experiences. And unlike experiences, they can't be easily deleted upon abuse by LL. An example for tracking would be invisible micromesh that follows you (there is micromesh floating around that is invisible even in ctrl-alt-t mode and can't be selected in edit mode), or animations that crash all versions of the official SL viewer and FS when played back on someone else. (Note: If someone knows how to stop that animation from doing that, please let me know, I've had to remove the animation from my products as it only recently started causing crashes.) People are completely free to distrust any script or experience, but region owners are also free to not cater to those unwilling to accept the experience or even bar them from the region entirely. We won't think any less of you, we just don't want to cater to you. For my personal use case, I use seamless teleporters to fake a kilometers long hallway using some collision math and experience teleports on a single region. Also, as an important aside, there are two pieces of misinformation in this thread: Experiences can ONLY override EEP if you have it set to "Shared Environment". If you have it overridden, the experience tools won't be able to change your EEP settings. Experience-attached items can only use RLV commands if the experience is rated M or higher.

Everyone who buys from these not-a-gachas is a fool. I said in an earlier thread that I was going to write and distribute the most unfair, despicable, script to undermine the legitimacy of these conveyors, and I did. I know for a fact that at least two of these not-a-gachas started from my script and that means you're definitely being taken for all you have. One of the "fun" things it does, for example, is keeping track of on what item a customer stops most often, and then make that item much rarer to get people to play longer. Do not trust these machines, you never know how the random selection works and there is no guarantee that there is even *a* chance for you to get what you want.

1. I know and that was not the question. I am well aware that the TOS is basically worthless. 2. I disagree. When I'm in a conversation with you, you are a participant and so am I. We both count as "a" participant. One party consent laws exist and are written in a similar way. My point stands that the TOS is written in a vague way and it should be clarified. Vague rules make for uncertainty.

So, we all know the common wisdom of "can't share IMs according to TOS" and all the silly "no u" picks people have, but I got curious and actually looked up the relevant part of the TOS and found it is written infuriatingly vaguely: This is a direct copy and paste from the TOS and I only bolded the part I want to point attention to. The clarification I am seeking is in the wording of that last part. As written, the wording implies you need consent from a participant. Not all participants. A participant. This wording is also very similar to real world one party consent laws. This would mean that the common wisdom is wrong and that this part of the TOS isn't about sharing conversations, but about spying on conversations as a third party. I would like it if a Linden could chime in and clarify, and after clarifying that they would change the wording from "a participant's" to "all participants" if my reading is wrong, or to change it to "one of the participant's" if I'm reading it right. The current verbiage is just vague enough that it could be both.

I have never sold or supported gacha. The sole purpose of this open source script would be to poison the well. All of my own products that I take pride in are either open source (source code of all scripts included in a notecard) for my older products or source available on request for any of my newer products. I also have a history of releasing free products that others charge ludicrous amounts for (my mesh shadow for example because I do not feel that literally 5 minutes in blender plus a L$10 upload fee warrants a 100+ L$ price tag.) If the banning of gacha, or public knowledge on the evil nature of any of its replacements, hurt any creator big or small I will not shed a tear. They brought it upon themselves by exploiting toxic and predatory mechanics rather than making products and selling them for a fair price that the market will support without any tricks needed.

I am highly considering poisoning the well by making a dirty, cheating, conveyor script that pulls all the nasty tricks to look random. Then releasing that script publicly for free and open source to make sure that everyone knows that the conveyor they choose to play could be using that script as its engine without any way for the vendors to prove that their script is "fair". I feel that with proper marketing of this script this could torpedo the credibility of the scheme before it gets off the ground.

This is just so typical and telling of how the modern world works. Something gets outlawed, and instead of asking the question "how can we comply", the question is, "how can we toe the line". This is why we can't have nice things. You and I both know that it's not about the method in which randomness is doled out, but the verifiability of the scripts involved. Instead of just complying, you're asking for the rules and regulations to be delineated precisely. Well, be careful what you wish for because you might up losing much more than just gacha if you insist on them leaving no loopholes.

I love how this name change thing is revealing the shoddy lsl coding practices some people use. This is what happens when you have a bunch of cowboy coders and an API that doesn't enforce proper practices. Every decent programmer has been using UUIDs even before name changes were announced. Because it makes sense. UUIDs are 36 characters, no more, no less, unlike usernames. UUIDs are designed for "identifying" things (it's in the name: Universally Unique Identifier), unlike usernames which were never guaranteed at any point to be static.

llRequestUserKey() allows you to cross reference suspected old names with new names. And of course uuid doesn’t change so you don’t have to worrry about this being used to avoid bans.

I'd appreciate a copy too.

I don't see the point of sleeping for 1 second upon teleporting someone. To be fair, the entire script seems to be over engineered.

For me the group chat in a group I own looks like this: http://i.imgur.com/Z2394S9.png I am "Shade Tenebrae".