Qwalyphi Korpov

revochen Mayne wrote: Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: On the other hand it might be good to add a tiny note WIKI about llSetText: "It is generally not useful to update the floating text 1400 times per second." Good idea! Got this added on the wiki/llSetText caveats part: Measurements showed a high impact of process time when doing numerous iterations in a while loop. For approx. 65K iterations the process times are ca. 5s without float text, 24s with llSetText and 96s when using llSetLinkPrimitiveParamsFast/PRIM_TEXT. Thats why its not adviced to make excessive use of a float text within such iterations. Hmmm... You seem to have inverted the point of my comment. I confess it wasn't a serious suggestion. You see - I was thinking most people don't need a hint about why it may not be useful to update a text display over 1000 times per second. I do take your point that it takes extra time to do so many non-useful updates.

Seriously it all depends. And I am not an expert on this. In days of old the JIRA was designed to take suggestions for change. Then that was changed. The JIRA was only for (secretly) reporting BUGS. Then behind the scenes some special people got access to the secrets. Then quietly it was changed to the JIRA is only for BUGS but also sometimes for suggesting changes. Project by project. Also it is rumored that some special friends of the Lindens can make suggestions whenever they want. Believe what you want. Depending on your suggestion you might find a user group you can attend. Get your item on the agenda. Attend the meeting. Actual Lindens will be there. At least one anyway. You can review the user group meeting logs to get an idea how it's gone for others.

On the other hand it might be good to add a tiny note WIKI about llSetText: "It is generally not useful to update the floating text 1400 times per second."

Perrie Juran wrote: Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: You do know that practicing medicine with out a license is illegal???? LOL ... I slipped in the blood type genetics chart instead of the parcel visibility thingy.

Hugsy Penguin wrote: Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: Nova Convair wrote: AnnAdams wrote: ... ... Only way to stay invisible is to set your parcel visibility off and kick everyone off your parcel that enters, since if someone is on the same parcel they can see you. I find that people inside the parcel and above the ban line height cannot see AVs in the parcel below that line. The reverse if also the case so those below the ban line can't see those above. So it's necessary to keep everyone off the parcel above the ban lines if you're above the line. If you're below the ban line height it's only necessary to keep everyone who's inside the parcel above the ban line. Which parcel access settings do pretty well. I've only tested this with Singularity, Firestorm and the LL viewers. Perhaps some other viewers defeat the design. edit to add Firestorm to the list. Wait a second please. I own land on the mainland. I stand in the middle at ground level. I go to About Land -> Options and uncheck "Avatars on other parcels can see and chat with avatars on this parcel". This will mean avatars on other parcels won't see me. I then go to About Land -> Access and uncheck "Allow public access". This will create ban lines that go up only yay-so-far. If another avatar flies above those ban lines and then over onto my land, they can cam down, see my prims (because they're within draw distance) but they still *won't* see me? Did something change with this feature? I distinctly remember a while back someone started a thread and they were lamenting that you could cam down and see the avatar. And other people were like (to paraphrase), "well duh, they're over your land that means they're on your parcel so they can see you". I did my testing with the three viewers I mentioned. It isn't necessary to turn on ban lines for the 'cloaking effect.' If 'See & Talk to' is unchecked on a parcel then AVs on different sides of the Ban Line Height won't see each other. Of course it's more convincing to actually test yourself in world. Here's a little table showing who can see who:

Kenbro Utu wrote: To keep this alive, and add a little info, the privacy icon in the menu bar does appear and disappear as I toggle the setting i Land Options. I suppose this means the information is going to the server and back to the viewer. I think things are working as designed. The problem is the text describing the option doesn't tell the whole story. Actually I don't think its possible to tell the whole story in a sentence. I made a little table to show who could see who between two parcels with all combinations of 'see & talk to' settings. Bottom line is both parcels need to have 'see & talk to' enabled to see AVs on the 'other' parcel. Within a parcel 'see & talk to' needs to be enabled to see other AVs in the same parcel who are on the other side of the ban line height. The ban line height effect is there with or without ban lines turned on.

Nova Convair wrote: Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: Nova Convair wrote: Seems to me it works exactly like it should, you just don't understand the setting. Like said b4 it's a 2way option. In case you are the only parcel on this sim that flips the option it will have absolutely no effect. If the setting is off you will be able to look into all other parcels that are set to off too. When 'see & chat with...' is unchecked AVs who are on below the ban line height will not see those above the ban line height and vice versa. So there is an effect. It may not seem like a useful effect on a single parcel sim. I can imagine a use though. Allowing public access with a landing point at a sky platform and a security orb keeping people out of the parcel below the banline height for instance. Thats meaningless. The OP didnt write about banlines, he even wants to set the restrictions OFF. Well. That's almost rude. The point of my 'pointless' post was to correct your erroneous statement rather than to solve the ops problem. Restrictions on and off don't change the ban line height. The visibility effect is the same with or without turning on ban lines. (Although it is easier to see where the ban lines end with them turned on.) /me now bites my tongue

Nova Convair wrote: Seems to me it works exactly like it should, you just don't understand the setting. Like said b4 it's a 2way option. In case you are the only parcel on this sim that flips the option it will have absolutely no effect. If the setting is off you will be able to look into all other parcels that are set to off too. When 'see & chat with...' is unchecked AVs who are on below the ban line height will not see those above the ban line height and vice versa. So there is an effect. It may not seem like a useful effect on a single parcel sim. I can imagine a use though. Allowing public access with a landing point at a sky platform and a security orb keeping people out of the parcel below the banline height for instance.

Nova Convair wrote: AnnAdams wrote: ... ... Only way to stay invisible is to set your parcel visibility off and kick everyone off your parcel that enters, since if someone is on the same parcel they can see you. I find that people inside the parcel and above the ban line height cannot see AVs in the parcel below that line. The reverse if also the case so those below the ban line can't see those above. So it's necessary to keep everyone off the parcel above the ban lines if you're above the line. If you're below the ban line height it's only necessary to keep everyone who's inside the parcel above the ban line. Which parcel access settings do pretty well. I've only tested this with Singularity, Firestorm and the LL viewers. Perhaps some other viewers defeat the design. edit to add Firestorm to the list.

Nyles Nestler wrote: Hi All, I know lots of us are using non-LL viewers like Firestorm, Singularity etc... but they don't have any forums on their websites. Is there anywhere online where folks are talking about these? Is there an area on this forum where it is appropriate to discuss them? Thanks! Nyles I used to think that posts about non-LL viewers were being moved to General Discussion. I'm not certain if that's a policy or just a random thing. There is a Forum Feedback forum where you can post questions like this. If you visit there it may appear that the LL never responds. I can assure you they do. As often as several times per year. http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Forums-Feedback/bd-p/forums_feedback

Tari Landar wrote: Local chat doesn't fall into the same category as private ims do. So, no, no violation at all. All of that information is readily available in every viewer. Your view of things seems very reasonable. However the TOS aren't necessarily reasonable. Below I've quoted to items that address disclosure of conversations. They don't set out separate categories for local chat and private IMs as you do. There may be other places that specify private IMs can't be disclosed. Those don't change the meaning of the TOS as written. I've bolded some of the text for emphasis. From the Community Standards: Disclosure Residents are entitled to a reasonable level of privacy with regard to their Second Life experience. Sharing personal information about your fellow Residents without their consent -- including gender, religion, age, marital status, race, sexual preference, alternate account names, and real-world location beyond what is provided by them in their Resident profile -- is not allowed. Remotely monitoring conversations in Second Life, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without the participants' consent are all prohibited. From LL Official: Residents privacy rights: Disclosing private Second Life conversations Sharing or posting a conversation inworld or in the Second Life forums without consent of all involved Residents is a violation of the Terms of Service. NOTE: This does not include posting of chat to social media sites or other websites. Posting such logs on web pages, emailing them, or printing them out and posting them on utility poles in the "real world" -- are all actions beyond the scope of the Second Life Terms of Service. ; while that might be illegal, but those laws must be enforced by the proper law enforcement agencies. "Conversation" means text that originally came from Second Life chat or Second Life instant messages. If it's totally unattributed, then it isn't considered disclosure. Additionally, Residents are not punished for sharing or posting a comment such as "Bob Resident said, 'You're the greatest!'"

Carl Thibodeaux wrote: Actually your wrong there. Logging infomation is in violation of the TOS. Want to see where? That's why you can be reported for sharing IM's. You seem to have a different TOS than me. So yes, I'd like to see where. Feel free to quote the exact item you feel is relevant.

First I want to say that some viewer radar dialogs have an option to "cam to" or "look at" a particular AVatar in the list. So while the issue isn't totally radar it also isn't totally not radar. Now regarding the parcel option for "Avatar on other parcels can see and chat with avatars on this parcel." In the interest of science I've done a tiny bit of testing. Set parcel access to group only un-check Avatar on other parcel can see and chat with avatars on this parcel. login a group member (M) login a group non-member (NM) I put non-member (NM) inside the parcel above the "ban line" height (BLH) of approx 110 meters. NM can see the M while he is also inside the parcel and above the "ban line" height. When M drops below the BLH or moves out of the parcel he vanishes. Camming down I can see objects but not the avatar M. The same things happen when a group member takes the place of the non member. Dats confusing huh? Group members below the BLH will not be visible to anyone outside the parcel. They are also not visible to anyone inside the parcel above the BLH. That includes group members. So the visibility thing works pretty well below the BLH. About that height you need to keep prying eyes out of the parcel. Final point of potential drama: You may know what you mean to imply by "engaged intimately with." I found out in another thread that to some people that means "PG poses in a hot tub" I mention that because if you're talking about "adult activities" rather than behaviour appropriate for eight year old children then there are TOS requirements that your important to the SIM person likely has violated.

The relevant point being that when it comes to using code provided by someone else the LL goes way beyond looking for a comment about GPL or CC-BY-SA. When I say relevant I mean relevant to the licensing of scripts. They/you probably can have a contract or license agreement with an anonymous avatar. Having a signed agreement with real life identities is less risky. I have little need to be concerned myself. Not being in the script business. I do use several open source software products tho. For instance Firefox. The source code is free and open source. They use Mozilla Public License 2.0 for most of the code. However some parts are covered by different licenses. They list 61 other licenses that may or may not apply. These are listed because they require the the license text to be included in any distribution. Then there are other licenses that didn't have that requirement. It can get complicated.

@ Madelaine & Perrie To be fair the LL is probably just taking a little short cut with the 'you can't have a contract with an avatar' FAQ item. Something like 'while we fully believe the contracts we have with avatars are valid it is considerably easier to deal with real life identities - so we require you to provide and sign with your real name.' The longer version may be more accurate but it doesn't flow as well or sumptin.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Perrie, here's what I find the most interesting part of Bragg Vs. Linden Lab... "interaction with a person in a virtual world can satisfy a state’s "minimum contacts" requirement for personal jurisdiction." This works against the idea that avatars can't sign contracts, and I agree with it. It seems to me that, even if your RL identity is unknown, the avatar you drive can be considered a legal proxy for you. Whether your RL identity can ever be tied to that avatar is another story. Ah... personal jurisdiction. /me wonders if that is why we now often communicate with double_secret Linden rather than the single_secret Liden of old. & when I say communicate I mostly mean hear from.

Mikki Miles wrote: I got it straight now. The thing is, that llRemoteLoadScript Pin won't load a script to an object that belongs to a different avatar. I read the caveat from the wiki (If target is not owned by the same person, and name does not have transfer permissions, an error is shouted on DEBUG_CHANNEL.) more like if both of this conditions are given it will fail, but appearently it's like if one of both conditions is given.... A tiny clarification: Per the WIKI the llRemoteLoadScriptPin "Only works if the script owner can modify target." target could be owned by a different avatar. For example an object share with group & having a different owner was successfully updated in my test. This worked with and without the script owner being present or logged in. Also worked with and without the target object owner present or logged in. I confess I'm probably a bit unclear on what the original set of conditions were that involved the script owners presence being required to make things work. I suppose a script could have sensor code that verified that the owner was nearby. idky tho.

Perrie Juran wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: It's also the case that minors generally can't enter into contracts, which makes you wonder how the teen grid legalities worked. That said, many online services are used by anonymous individuals, so there is probably some real legal value in having a TOS. Qwal, you've probably put more effort into understanding all this legal prose than those who wrote it! That raises an interesting point. How does LL handle the Teen sign up? When I first got On Line, my kids wanted to do some things also and I registerred them for some things and had to provide a form of Parental (Adult) Verification saying I approved of their using the Web Sites in question. I'm not going to risk my account by trying a 'dummy' sign up to find out. I too have wondered if the teen registrants branched off to some guardian approval path. On the other hand perhaps the LL considers the TOS to be mere guidelines rather than a contract. Like posting the no pushing rule at a swimming pool. You don't need to go to court to throw a kid out for pushing. Of course the LL has a set of guidelines aside from the TOS. You have to follow the TOS but the guidelines... idk.

Thanks Madelaine. I have put in some hours puzzling over stuff. Though I'm sure I don't understand it. Cuz I'm not a lawyer. N even them & the judges appear to be puzzled too. Now the thing about you can't have a contract with some virtual world avatar. I'm thinking that's a qualification of convenience. Although I'm not a lawyer I am very familiar with qwalyphication. Cuz you know the LL has been involved in legal disputes in court with their virtual world avatars. Course the courts wanted to know the virtual world avatar real life identities. The LL doesn't get to show up as Commerce Team Linden either. So ipso facto n like that. I was tempted not to post anymore on this yesterday. But then I thought I could get some mileage out of sprinkling the word consideration around. Which could be useful. I've heard you can't have a valid contract without consideration. Although there are exceptions. Then I forgot. (sigh) Now I have to admit I took a short cut when I implied that all agreements are contracts. Turns out that's not true. How you tell when one is.... that's another puzzle. The TOS with it's 18 separate cross linking documents... it smells like a contract but I'm just a chipmunk. By the way - as part of the sign-up process there a place where it says that by proceeding you are confirming that you have read and agree to the TOS. So I take back the stuff I said in some other thread about being able to get into the feeds without ever accepting the TOS. The sign-up process is very easy and quick if you don't bother to read those 18 documents.

What does the LL do to deal with Intellectual Property(IP)/Copyright regarding these forums LSL Library? How does the LL deal with Intellectual Property(IP)/Copyright regarding contributions to the SL viewer? To use the forums and contribute code to the LSL library: Provide a birthdate to the SL registration process Provide an email address to the SL registration process Pick a unique account name Select a password Register on the forums using your unique account name and password Accept the forum Community Guidelines (which folds in the SL Terms of Service by reference) To contribute code to the SL viewer project: Complete, sign, date and convey via mail, fax or email a Contributors Agreement which includes Your full name Second Life Account Name (if applicable) Your E-Mail Address Your mailing address Your telephone number Facsimile information Employer name and supervisor name if you are employed as a software engineer or... (more stuff like that) The agreement states among other things that You assign to Linden Lab joint ownership of the contribution The Linden Lab may register a copyright in your contribution You represent and warrant that you are legally entitled to grant assignment of copyright and the various licenses... You represent and warrant that the contribution is your original work.... and more The complete (& more accurate) agreement terms can be seen here and includes a link to the agreement 'form': http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Contribution_Agreement Clearly the LL wants a great deal before they're willing to make use of a contribution. Meanwhile they provide you with the unique SL account name of the contributor. In both cases the LL does what it needs to do to protect itself. Nothing wrong with that. Well.... it does leave you without much assurance that you can safely make use of a contribution. What we do have (I think - no known examples) is a DCMA take down available. If a copyright holder discovers their work improperly posted in the LSL Library they could get it removed. Of course everyone is free to communicate with the anonymous forum contributors to obtain their signed and dated representations and warrants. In hunting around for the above I found an insight regarding the LL view of the ability of anonymous persons or virtual avatars to form contracts (enter into agreements.) http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Contribution_Agreement_FAQ I'll quote a relevant portion here. (Even though it's not allowed per the FAQ document itself. I've been assured here in the forums that even though the LL says you can't do something it's really okay to do it unless the LL also stops you from doing it. Although I've also seen it said that it's not okay to do something that the LL already told you not to do even if you also see other people doing that thing and not getting stopped by the LL... see?) Do I really have to provide all my real life identity information, and will that be made public? Yes, you must provide your real life identity. This agreement is a contract, and one cannot enter into a contract with an anonymous party or a virtual world avatar (at least not yet, and as enthusiastic as we are about the future of Virtual Reality, we're not ready to pioneer that aspect at this time). Your identity is handled as "personal information" in accordance with our Privacy Policy. So when your virtual world avatar agrees to the TOS you're doing the impossible. Amazing isn't it?

So. A number things are unclear. The situation is often ambiguous. Great effort going into licensing may result in little protection. It's no wonder the LL has stepped away from making any great effort regarding licensing of this forums LSL Library content. So let's wonder why LL has stepped away from making any great effort regarding licensing of this forums LSL Library. Going back to my earlier example. ...suppose I make a prim product and include in the contents my derivative script. Per the CC-BY-SA the script must be free to copy, modify & transfer, So any products sold in SL that use scripts from the SL WIKI Script Library (or derived from those scripts) must set the attributes to COPY/MOD/TRANSFER. LOL. Now I suppose some reading this are thinking that's all BS. No - it's CC-BY-SA. Now I'll add this: Under a CC-BY-SA license you are free to copy, distribute and transmit the work. That copying and distributing isn't limited to Second Life. Which seems a bit conflicted for the LL. Why would the LL require scripts in their own WIKI to be licensed in a way that assures they can be moved/copied off to other competing grids? Which I suppose raises the companion question: Why would the LL put in place Terms of Service which block the moving/porting of CC-BY-SA licensed items out of SL. Not their problem? Nothing is simple? Then again the Creative Commons people said not to use their licenses for software & the LL just went with that advice.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Welcome to the world of legal conundrums surrounding "software", the pinnacle of which appears to be software patents. All this licensing lingo could be seen as pointless posturing given the exceptional ease with which one can do whatever the hell one wants with code and go absolutely undetected. I think you're also witnessing that most people have far less understanding of the law than lawyers, if that's possible. ;-) Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this Madelaine. And I'm sharing them here again - by attribution. And I'm about to share some of mine in a similar manner. Which is pretty much what the Creative Commons By Attribution Share Alike license is all about. I must say though I'm a bit unsettled to not be speaking exclusively to myself. Like you said - it's so easy to do whatever you want with the code and go undetected. For example - suppose I was to get a script out of the WIKI. Easy to do. Per the WIKI TOU it's licensed under CC-BY-SA. Source is available. I can use it to create a derivative work (modified script.) Because the original script was licensed CC-BY-SA I'm required to license the derivative using the same or a similar license. Quick reminder in simple terms of what CC-BY-SA license provides You are free: to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work to Remix — to adapt the work to make commercial use of the work http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ That's simple in a way. Now suppose I make a prim product and include in the contents my derivative script. Per the CC-BY-SA the script must be free to copy, modify & transfer, So any products sold in SL that use scripts from the SL WIKI Script Library (or derived from those scripts) must set the attributes to COPY/MOD/TRANSFER. LOL. Now I suppose some reading this are thinking that's all BS. No - it's CC-BY-SA. I hope I've provided a good example of the hopelessly unenforceable aspect of the whole software licensing situation. It's a bit difficult to chase down the language in the CC licenses that apply to scripts (software.) That's because the CC licenses are not designed to be used with software. The people at Creative Commons in fact say their licenses should not be used for software. Yes, and this has been a common complaint about the "free as in speech" interpretation of software licenses. It's as if producing an algorithm, then applying CC licensing to it, makes it impossible for anyone to ever again use that algorithm (in any form, as you could presumably claim it traces back to the original, even if it was derived independently), without being encumbered by the license. When I worked for a medical instrument manufacturer, there were internal discussions about using open-source software. Some licenses stated that inclusion of the code required us to publish ALL source code for the product it was used in, not just the licensed bits. When I moved out on my own, I had a client who did work for the Defense Department. They had a product that used algorithms produced by researchers working under an NSF grant. The algorithms were published under a license that required any modifications of the code to be made public. Making the source code of the product public would have been a violation of federal law. There are Creative Commons licensed implementations of virtually every popular algorithm, from "quicksort" to "Bresenham's line drawing algorithm" (which is Bresenham's!) to libraries of code to implement FAT32 on memory cards. Since the license allows "remix", how does anyone prove that their particular implementation of an algorithm was not a modification of something with a CC license? It's been more than ten years since I left that company, but at the time the recommended solution was to avoid any code snippet containing any licensing verbiage. Of course it was often easy to find versions of almost anything that had been modified and posted online with all licensing verbiage removed, so plausible deniability was generally within reach. It takes only moments to pass an algorithm through a scriptable text editor to render it unrecognizable as a copy of the original, and most products do not ship with source code. Catch me if you can? ETA: It's been years since I've thought about CC stuff, but I do recall conversations in which we wondered whether "distribution" of the code meant in source form. If so, taking a CC-BY-SA script and embedding into a prim set to no-mod might be allowed, as you have distributed only the compiled algorithm, not the source code. You'd only be confined by the source license if you distributed the source. This may have been wishful thinking. I do that. OMG... instead of getting closer to understanding it all I just get dizzier. The CC licenses don't address the source/object software issue directly. I suspect a key reason the CC people recommends a GNU license for software. Quote from the CC website follows. ---------- "Creative Commons recommends and uses free and open source software licenses for software. To use the Free Software Foundation’s GNU General Public License, see how to use GNU licenses for your own software." --------------- Regarding algorithms - the U.S. Copyright Office says an algorithm (, program logic, method or layout) cannot be copyrighted. Only the copyrightable expression embodied in the program will get protection. Of course this leaves me mystified as to what is being protected via the GNU license. Just kidding - it's all of the copyrightable expression - obviously. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ61.pdf Really it's not clear at all. Here's some real world info: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CFYQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Feuro.ecom.cmu.edu%2Fprogram%2Flaw%2F08-732%2F2012Slides%2Fcopyright14.ppt&ei=5HrMUaKCMsepyAHf8oHYCQ&usg=AFQjCNHsaQojgiQmy2HsMMvlWkh5XX4nJA&sig2=CLVHRQWbsOH7LC4N99eP9Q&bvm=bv.48572450,d.aWc

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Welcome to the world of legal conundrums surrounding "software", the pinnacle of which appears to be software patents. All this licensing lingo could be seen as pointless posturing given the exceptional ease with which one can do whatever the hell one wants with code and go absolutely undetected. I think you're also witnessing that most people have far less understanding of the law than lawyers, if that's possible. ;-) Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this Madelaine. And I'm sharing them here again - by attribution. And I'm about to share some of mine in a similar manner. Which is pretty much what the Creative Commons By Attribution Share Alike license is all about. I must say though I'm a bit unsettled to not be speaking exclusively to myself. Like you said - it's so easy to do whatever you want with the code and go undetected. For example - suppose I was to get a script out of the WIKI. Easy to do. Per the WIKI TOU it's licensed under CC-BY-SA. Source is available. I can use it to create a derivative work (modified script.) Because the original script was licensed CC-BY-SA I'm required to license the derivative using the same or a similar license. Quick reminder in simple terms of what CC-BY-SA license provides You are free: to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work to Remix — to adapt the work to make commercial use of the work http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ That's simple in a way. Now suppose I make a prim product and include in the contents my derivative script. Per the CC-BY-SA the script must be free to copy, modify & transfer, So any products sold in SL that use scripts from the SL WIKI Script Library (or derived from those scripts) must set the attributes to COPY/MOD/TRANSFER. LOL. Now I suppose some reading this are thinking that's all BS. No - it's CC-BY-SA. I hope I've provided a good example of the hopelessly unenforceable aspect of the whole software licensing situation. It's a bit difficult to chase down the language in the CC licenses that apply to scripts (software.) That's because the CC licenses are not designed to be used with software. The people at Creative Commons in fact say their licenses should not be used for software.

LOL Dats a nice self-conflicted example.

bluelacroix wrote: ... /12#on And the statement disappears, which is good, meaning it didn't just say it as conversation, but rather it took it as a command ..... A tiny point of clarification. The statement disappears because it's gone to channel 12 rather than channel 0. Chat sent to a channel other than 0 will not appear in local chat - whether 'heard' by a script or not. Scripts can listen whatever channel they want. So to be entirely clear: If a script is listening on channel 0 and 'takes chat as a command' that chat will not disappear as a result.