Phil Deakins

You can put as many copies of those items as you want - all over the house. Just buy them There is no "should" about being able to buy one and create many copies of it. The word "should" doesn't come into it, except in the minds of those who think that everything should be free, of course.

Yes, clothing is completely different. Selling copy/no-trans clothing makes a lot of sense, and that's what I would have done had I been in that business. I just won't do it with furniture I did fall foul of copy/no-trans once, though. It is very rare for me to buy clothing, but I had various castle character bots in my castle, and I was adding a 'damsel in distress'. I needed a suitable middle ages outfit for her, and I found one, so I bought it. Then I discovered that I should have checked the perms first, because I couldn't give it to her. I don't remember why I IMed the creator about it, but it wasn't out of annoyance, or anything like that. I'd soon logged in with the bot and taken her to the store where she was literally about to buy another copy of the outfit, when the creator IMed me, offering to give one to the the bot, which she did. That was a brilliant experience.

I've only ever added real money to my account twice - both in my first week or so. Currency conversions never entered into it back then, and I doubt that it does now. No doubt there is a charge for it, but it was never presented to me.

You had me too until:_ "Affinity for visiting or attending public events on Second Life (such as art exhibitions, concerts, etcetera);" I don't do those kind of things. Still, on the bright side, you've saved $10

So are you saying that the streamlined system is worse for you, like it's worse for the OP?

Tasteful tattoos are nice, imo, but I do dislike the large ones, and I dislike a lot of tattoos a lot more - a lot meaning covering lots of arm, and such. By tasteful, I mean a small one on a shoulder or at the side of the groin - that sort of thing.

In that case, I was missing something. What LL has done does appear to streamline the operation, except in the OP's case, where she wants to add a budgeted $25 each month.

You need to have US$ in the account to pay tier. Perhaps that's why she needs it. Or maybe I'm missing something.

You need to post about the problem in the Second Life Viewer forum, which is under the Technology forum.

The real "myth" in all of this is that people starting threads to expose myths are, in fact, posting myths

So it's not linking at all. It's just that some parts are positioned in specific places and the term "soft linking" is used to signify that. Ty

Malanya wrote: If you remove estate manager rights, I would bet the people would know something was up so I doubt that would be effective. This forum can be seen by anyone too, so who knows who has read it that is part of your staff. If all estate manager rights are removed, but not mentioned here, then it's very unlikely that a non-manager culprit will realise that the test is on. So, if the problem stops, the chances are it was an estate manager, if the problem doesn't stop, then it was certainly someone else. Either way, unless LL finds that it's an exploit, the only way to deal with it is to do what many have said in this thread and remove all estate manager rights for a while and see what happens. Perhaps the owner has already done it.

Voltaure wrote: For example: while theoretically bank wires can be used to withdraw (it seems), is there's a single person on these forums that have actually done that? Does it even work still? Yes, me. Both before and after the US$10,000 minimum amount came into force.

I've never heard of "soft linking". What on earth is that? I do get people making a mess of things, not only when they are trying to alter them, but also by accidentally dropping a texture on them when they intended it to go onto something else. It's comparatively rare and I do sort it out when asked. I also get asked if I will replace an item because the person was force-moved and they didn't receive the item. It's always in a coalesced object and I help them to get it out. Those things are comparatively rare so no-copy problems aren't a significant enough problem to make me even consider selling copyable items. When I said that I've never sold copy items, it wasn't wholly true. I made and sold a temp-rezzer some years ago. As you know, they are largely used to furnish homes without significantly increasing the prim count. Temp-rezzers require that the things they rez are copyable, But I had a huge store, full of furniture, none of which was copyable so none of it could be used in the temp-rezzer. It seemed silly, so I made a special range of copyable furniture for use in the temp rezzer. It didn't last long. I didn't like selling copy items so I stopped selling them, and also stopped selling the temp-rezzer. The decision was easy to make, and it was even easier because too many people needed help setting the rezzers up, in spite of very full and clear instructions. I also sold copyable cushions But that's all.

Solar Legion wrote: It's not an "argument" - it's a reflection of reality. As far as putting a value on human life .... you're not supposed to place that sort of value on it. That's a whole other kettle of fish. Maybe so, but does a kettle of fish have any real value? That's assuming you can get the fish into the kettle in the first place, of course.

Czari Zenovka wrote: ETA: Ooooo, Phil your post reminded me of something. I have been wrestling with the Copy/Mod vs Trans/Mod permissions...again. Iirc, your items are Trans/Mod? I've heard some people say they will never purchase an item without Copy perms. You have been very successful - if you don't mind sharing (or sending an IM if you prefer) what helped you decide on your permissions? I've been tearing my hair out over this. My answer is easy, Czari. I was in the skybox rental business when I started the store so I knew that home rental businesses need to furnish their rentals. It was obvious from the outset that, if I sold copyable furniture, I'd sometimes sell, say, one sofa, and the buyer would put copies of it in a multitude of homes. That wouldn't be very fair to me, so I never sold copyable furniture. I've had people asking for copyable pieces, and even offering to pay 3 times as much, but I've never done it, because it would be very nearly the same, except I'd get the money for 3 instead of 1, and dozens of copies of it would be used. I have offered good quantity discounts though, and most people who asked for copyable items for their rentals took advantage of the discounts - which went up to a third off for 20+ units, and the units were mixable; e.g. 20 sofas of various designs qualified for the third off. So, because of rentals, I think it's a bad choice to sell copyable furniture. ETA: Those who say they will never buy a non-copy item have never interested me at all. Their reasoning doesn't make any sense from a furniture seller's point of view. If they want copyable items, they are free to make their own. I see no reason to let those in the rental business rez dozens of copies and only pay for one, just to satisfy those few who have a chip on their shoulders about non-copy items. I've always been happy to do without their custom

There are plenty of "word games" around but 'money' isn't one of them. You were talking about RL money, and so am I. Money is a credit note - a working credit note. Sometimes it's made of metal and sometimes it's made of paper, but they are all actual credit notes, and not word games. And they are very versatile credit notes too, because they can be used to pay for any goods and services within borders of where the credit notes apply. On the other hand, gold and silver can't usually be used to pay for goods and services. They are just metals, and don't function as credit notes like money does. If all you have in your pocket is a lump of gold, you can't even buy a loaf of bread (unless the seller is expert enough to know that it is actually gold and that s/he can swap it for some credit notes). Lumps of gold and silver on their own are worthless. They only have value because some people will swap them for credit notes in the form of money. So which is the word game? Money or lumps of gold and silver?

The problem with removing the rights of all estate managers, and then reinstating them one by one, is that all of them will know it's being done, so, if one of them is the guilty party, s/he need only wait for the whole process to finish before doing it again. Removing the rights of all estate managers is really only useful to ascertain whether or not the culprit is one of them, and even that would rely on the actual person, if it's not an employee, not knowing that the test is going on. If it turns out that it is one of them, the only way to handle it is to let them all go and get new staff. It would be unfortunate, but, if LL can't find out what's happening, there is no realistic way of discovering which one it doing it.

hrmph!

Tiola Violet wrote: And yes, I also prefer to sell 1 object to 100 people then to 10 so I do low prices because that's what feels right to me. Hey, that's MY line! I've been saying it for years - ever so slightly different though. People used to tell me that my prices were too low and I'd always say that "I'd rather sell 11 at L$100 than 1 at L$1000". And I was right, as my bank records can show. So gerroff my line, you upstart!

Having asked the forum a question the OP hasn't been back to reply to any posts, or to update the forum on the situation, so why bother posting anything that might be helpful in this thread any more.

Perrie Juran wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I'm with you, Alicia. To the OP: I don't see how you can be certain that it isn't one of the estate managers doing it. If LL could find out who is doing it, they'd have told the owner, and you could be certain that it's not an employee. But, if they haven't done that, I know of no way for you to be certain that it isn't an employee. I'm not certain that LL would say who it is. I could possibly see them saying it was one of the Estate Mgrs, but I'm not sure. LL does not tell us the outcomes of AR's, nor do they get involved in Resident disputes. If LL was to name and shame the individual would go against their way of doing things. You're right, but since a Linden got involved, and got banned, I feel sure that they would inform the owner if it's an employee. I am also sure that they would inform the owner that they've found out who or what was doing it, etc. without giving a name if it's a user other than an employee. I doubt that they would just keep quiet if they found the problem and it was a person.

I'm with you, Alicia. To the OP: I don't see how you can be certain that it isn't one of the estate managers doing it. If LL could find out who is doing it, they'd have told the owner, and you could be certain that it's not an employee. But, if they haven't done that, I know of no way for you to be certain that it isn't an employee.

Brilliant! Thank you both! I used Dora's suggestion because, as you said, Qie, it's more elegant I've never come across llRot2Fwd() before but then I studiously avoid rotations whenever possible, because my brain gets to feel flummoxed with them. If you don't know what flummoxed means, it means what it sounds like It's quaternions that do it. I've never grasped them and, since I usually have no need to grasp them, I don't try. Thank you both for your help. It works perfectly now, and it's so much easier than having to take a second forward location for the focus.

Or you could simply cut that 10% off into its own little parcel, abandon it, and buy the main chunk. But the alt is the favourite.