Paul Hexem

Actually, that's not quite correct. While the slave states did favor it, it was actually designed to ensure that lower population states would be able to have a fair say in elections vs high population states. Otherwise (at the time) a few northern states would be choosing the president no matter how other states voted- which is why those states liked it. Today, that'd probably be New York and California.

I love threads like this. You get one crowd using the #lovetrumpshate thing while advocating killing the other guys. You got another crowd that thinks the guy can do no wrong. Both sides are completely disconnected from reality. And inevitably, someone always brings up Hitler.

Sounds like a problem with your connection. Mine was doing the exact same thing just yesterday (or the day before) while I was on wireless. Once I got home to my good PC and internet connection, it was fine.

There is zero downside to setting a default that improves SL's optimization and usability, especially if the old default is left as a preset. People against ideas like this are the same ones that make their laggy crap no-mod so it can't be fixed.

I suspect someone got upset and reported one of the posts, which almost inevitably gets the whole thread deleted instead of the specifically reported post...

Sounds like you want to dump SL and play Ark: Survival Evolved.

That's not how it works. Next time, don't accept any animation requests.

It doesn't matter how pretty your original red box is, if the customer needs a blue box. I already do make my own stuff. And sell stuff. Most with modify permission. I'm not telling anyone how to make or market their stuff. I'm just saying, if selling your stuff no mod is upsetting you so much that you have to come into an informative thread and get so hostile, maybe you need to rethink what you're doing, 'cause clearly you're not very happy with the results you're getting.

Pamela Galli wrote: Theresa Tennyson wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: My point in this discussion has just been to make clear that ultimately a creator should feel completely free to make whatever he likes, at whatever scale, whatever permissions, whatever color, whatever style, for whatever reason. and targetting whatever clientele he chooses, without being accused of in some way injuring people who do not like his things. I think not everyone who posts in these threads understands that this is the way a free market works, and thus recommends trying to influence creator decisions through other means besides buying decisions -- name and shame, lists, boycotts, etc., Just not buying will absolutely do the trick. I think creators should feel completely free to make whatever they like, but consumers should be completely free to say what they think about the creator's decisions. After all, if they decisions are good ones, what would they have to fear? Of course, everyone should feel free to make whatever choices he wants, without attacking the decisions of others which do not affect them. If I decided to make all red objects and you hate red, feel free to not buy them. But me making red items does not mean I am depriving you in some way. Plenty of non red stuff around. I think the real problem is when you make all red items, I say to someone, "That store only sells red items, and since it's no mod, you can't change it. Try a creator that sells mod." Then you get all upset and insult people and their professors in the thread because informing them threatens your business, you're being kinda stupid.

entity0x wrote: Gadget Portal wrote: You're getting awfully salty about this whole thing. It's like I said... If it's that upsetting to lose sales because people are learning the truth, maybe there's something wrong with your business model. And if you're not losing sales, and selling no mod is working fine for you, then why all the crying? NOTE: You're a self-identified troll by your avatar, so this response is not necessarily to you ( who wants attention by making frequent inciteful comments and accusations), but to anyone who reads this, -for the sake of discussion and clarity. This isn't about me, I'm discussing a topic here. Do you have the intellect to understand that a person can discuss a topic without having to have a personal belief or investment in it? Or hold no animosity at the end of the day for an individual, just because that individual does things different from you? This is how people learn more about things.. they discuss with others that have counter views to their own, so that they can see another, and learn from another view. Even if I present a view with vigor and determination, doesn't mean I can't or won't change my position with new information, or perhaps a view I hadn't considered in the past. The only ones who get salty, upset, or resort to attacking the person, behind the post are the ones who do not understand this. Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. Theresa Tennyson wrote: You obviously consider yourself an artist first instead of a businessperson. Essentially, you just confirmed what I said. Thank you! I am an artist first, AND a businessperson. In my posts, I have stated that SL is firstly a creative outlet for me, secondly I make a few things to support my activities and uploads into SL, thirdly learning to work in 3D to make creations come to life, and SL is my main sharing ground. Currently it's a small business, and it's profitable. Right now, I re-invest earnings back into more learning and tools, and into the day to day dealings in SL. My goals are also not just in SL, but in other avenues. If the SL business grows, that's great, but no, it isn't my foremost goal, and for many it shouldn't be. It changes them, corrupts them, makes them overly anxious and hostile, competitive, and therefore threatened at times by countering opinion. This creates elitism and some of the statements made on these forums can reflect that. Also, don't mix my opinions with my end actions, as I discuss topics with a razor's edge or appearance of stubbornness, but I always take countering opinions into consideration. I just fight hard for a position at the time, and ask for fair and well-thought out counter-responses. (I'm actually trying to help the person convince me of their position). But no, if I wanted to make a business, and have less fun at it, I would just produce the average things that everyone wants, pay more attention to top selling products, and learn/make them, etc.. it IS a different mindset. However, I think this point is a little off the topic, because it should be about WHY or WHY NOT to have certain permissions, and whether or not the average consumer should boycott those who do not provide it (I gave reasons why some may not want to - still not responded to), and the general nastiness of posters stating that merchants who dont give carte blanche to users to modify their works are 'anti-consumerist', etc. I see a lot of repeating opinions, but no real supporting statements behind them. I haven't made any accusations, just observations and questions. If you're taking it that personality that you think it's an accusation, perhaps it is about you after all. Again I ask... If it's not hurting sales, why get so upset and accuse Penny of wanting to use things for her own profit? That sounds like discussing people, not ideas.

You're seeing the same thing as me. They want to sell something to you, but don't want you to use it once you have it unless you're going to use it in exactly precisely the way they envisioned. No wonder their sales are hurting.

You're getting awfully salty about this whole thing. It's like I said... If it's that upsetting to lose sales because people are learning the truth, maybe there's something wrong with your business model. And if you're not losing sales, and selling no mod is working fine for you, then why all the crying?

You're getting awfully riled up over something that you're saying doesn't concern you. Why are you so upset about Penny educating people with correct information? If you're afraid it's going to hurt your business model, maybe you need a new business model.

Sure, there's plenty of ways to make more money. But I guarantee not many are this easy or remotely this interesting!

Red Godde wrote: I think people should be able to share ideas and opinions, however there seems to be a very condescending/patronising tone in any response that doesn't agree, or has a different take on mod perms. A very real reason for some items being sold no mod has already been mentioned - 'The one commercial reason that I can understand, is that a merchant can then offer the same item with a different texture. It's not a model which I support but that's about the only "reason" I can see that fits.' The amount of time I have seen friends put in to learn 3D modeling software, and to make different items, especially rigged mesh, and all the other things that go along with running a business in sl, is significant. They would not be able to do it if they did not earn a certain amount of money. For some it is their RL income, and they work their asses off, fair play to them. I don't believe that creators selling no mod items is 'severely restricting the creativity and freedom that used to be rampant in SL' no one is stopping any of you from making whatever you want, just go ahead and make it. Many people seem to feel very entitled to have whatever they want whenever they want it, and often have no idea about the work other put in, or care about the creators motivations or objectives. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything they don't want to. Instead of complaining here, go be creative if that is what you want. Not sure which thread you're reading, but most of the people responding here are content creators already. It just so happens we have a better understanding of reality than the ones you're talking about, is all.

Just recently in RL my parents bought a camper. They loved it, but my mom was worried there wasn't enough cabinet space. My dad called me up and we took one look at it and said "Not a problem." They bought it, and we installed the cabinets my mom wanted to make it perfect. Same concept applies to SL.

Since my previous secretary stopped showing up and the replacement wore WAY too many layers of clothing, I am hiring!Pay scales up based on qualifications and attendance. Basic requirements: Minimum 18 years of age (this is SL, you never know!) Female Understand basic SL usage Understand the SL Marketplace Able and willing to type documents, product descriptions, instructions professionally Able to handle customer service inquries (however rare they may be) Minimum of 10 hours per week attendance Active hours should be between 9 PM and 9 AM SL time Being able to use voice/Skype is a plus, but not required Pay Scale: L$ 100 per week: Show up, type some notecards/product descriptions/etc, sometimes test scripts or animations, sometimes help with names or design decisions, don't object to being occasionally objectified! L$ 150 per week: Previous requirements, plus product bug testing, occassionally modeling for product and advertisement posters L$ 200 per week + 15% sales commissions: Previous requirements, plus making prouct images for SL Marketplace (sales commissions active even if employment ends) 20 + hours attendance per week adds L$ 100 to each option L$ 300 signing bonus after first week L$ can be provided for work related expenses, including hair, clothing, or other modeling accessories Attendance will be tracked via login script. Jealous boyfriends/husbands, screen filling gestures, or AO's using the ancient, freebie sexywalk will cause immediate termination. Gadget's Gadgets is an equal opportunity employer and does not descriminate against furries, aliens, robots, or big boobed bimbos (as a matter of fact, being any or all of those things could be a bonus, especially that last one). If interested, send an IM (not a notecard) to Gadget Portal See my marketplace store to get an idea of the types of things that will be typed: https://marketplace.secondlife.com/stores/67953

Phil Deakins wrote: Gadget Portal wrote: What's absurd is expecting programmers to add an "Are you sure?" confirmation to every stupid button. For one, if you're dumb, you're gonna find a way to break it no matter what the designer does. Of course it would be absurd to add an "Are you sure?" confirmation to every button, but you're grossly exaggerating things. This is about a vendor with a Gift function, taking the money for an item, after the Gift button has been clicked but no name to deliver the item to has been provided. It took the money and delivered nothing. When that occurs - gift clicked but no name given - the vendor really should not take the money. It could ask for confirmation since there seems to be a error (which you seem to be against), or it could provide an explanatory message and not take the money. Whatever it does or doesn't do, it most definitely should not take the money without delivering the item to somebody. In the thread, some people have said two main things. (1) It's the OP's fault for clicking the Gift button, and (2) the OP should not have come here to vent without first trying to resolve the situation with the merchant. Both views are wrong. (1) It's the fault of the script's programmer for not covering such a circumstance. Any programmer beyond beginner level would have covered it. (2) The OP didn't name a store or an avatar, so there was no accusation. In fact, it may well have done some good because those who read it may remember in the future if they happen to click a Gift button by mistake. Regardless of whether or not the merchant eventually provided the item to the OP, the OP posted to provide a "warning" about vendors and Gift button mistakes. The problem may be unique to a particular store or the faulty script may be common in vendors, so the OP's warning benefits everyone here. His objective has been fulfilled to the possible future benefit of all who read it. The OP did everyone a favour. I'm not exaggerating anything. The post I replied to added land renewals, freebies, and more to the list. Pretty soon we'd have to have confirmations on everything. As for gifting a blank name, the scripter there should have at least had it check to make sure it could actually find said name before proceeding, no confirmation needed.

entity0x wrote: Suki Hirano wrote: Earlier I went to a store and bought something via right click -> pay. It ate my money and didn't deliver. Fine I went to the redelivery terminal, guess what? Nothing. Then I went on SL website to check transaction history, yup there it is, my payment. How this happened? Because I accidentally clicked "gift" before clicking "pay", then didn't type in a name to gift to (obviously since I wasn't going to gift it). I cancelled the gifting dialogue thinking that would be fine right? Nope, it still thinks you're trying to gift someone, so when I right click -> pay, it literally sent my item to "empty name" which doesn't exist. Is this for real? We're over 10 years in LSL scripting and they can't script a proper vendor script? I mean I'm not a computer programming major but this is just common sense, like when you go to an ATM and input something wrong, it's not supposed to eat your money and say "haha sorry try again but we're gonna just eat your money". They don't know that when you cancel a gift name input dialogue the user means she doesn't want to gift to anyone? Even if that's the case, why not refund the money if the avatar name is empty or not found? I've seen vendors refund money in sales, so yes this can be done. If try to buy a group-only product without group tag, it will refund your money. I guess whoever scripted this vendor, likely CasperVend, didn't bother scripting a refund option if something invalid happens. So basically now I'm at the mercy of the shop creator, should she "feel like" delilvering the item I paid for. And you know how it is with a lot of creators in SL... log on maybe once in a blue moon to check money then log off, customer service? Never heard of it. Just a warning for people shopping in places where they use vendor scripts instead of the simple right click -> buy. Don't use the stupid "buy as gift" option, if you accidentally make a typo, type wrong name, or simply leave it blank, you're screwed and won't even register on redelivery terminal. Just pay your friend the money and let her buy it herself. YOu are correct, the following statements are directed to the respondents to your post; Once again, the trend is to always 'blame the user', 'blame the player' because of some lack of safety features on a UI/UX system. No, you don't blame the user, or call them stupid. You observe what the user does when interacting with your system, and if any mistakes are found, you work to correct them immediately. Thats your job as a programmer, UI/UX designer. Test your product, your interface, fresh eyes or even get Mom to do it. For insight. Am I stupid because I clicked "Will Not Renew" on a recent land rental, when I meant "Buy Another Month", then get an IM from the land owner wondering why I'm leaving? A distractin in RL, a finger spasm or accidental click happens.. and I was like 'oh crap, thats not what is supposed to happen". No confirm, no warning.. just click.. How about adding a failsafe, or confirm button? This is common practice in UI/UX/user form creation in programming and other courses. "Are you sure you want to renew, NOT renew?" "Are you sure you want to send $100 to [bLANK]? " Or "Sorry I cannot send money to [bLANK], please enter a name". Listen to yourselves, how absurd. With any sensitive transaction, you check and doublecheck. When you don't have these safeguards in on your vending box, it is YOU that looks suspicious, it is YOU that looks stupid because you don't care about protecting the customer (or guiding them safely through the process). You're only hurting yourselves when you do this. I posted long ago in my early days clicking around in a FREEBIE store with $0L items, after about 30 or so items later, realized that some $100+L products were embedded throughout, and I had blindly paid by accident. This goes back to trust. Stop blaming the user, and work towards protecting them (and yourself from getting a bad reputation) by confirming sensitive or large amount purchases. Caveat: For customers, we have to be careful too, do not assume every merchant in SL has your interests in mind. I had fun a few times in SL, paying a vending box to rent land... that I never got. What's absurd is expecting programmers to add an "Are you sure?" confirmation to every stupid button. For one, if you're dumb, you're gonna find a way to break it no matter what the designer does. More importantly though, people that just want to use the product are going to go insane having to confirm every single click they make.

I will say this; I can corroborate being harrassed by a merchant and their clique after leaving a bad review. After going and looking at the product's other reviews, anything short of 5 stars had comments jumping on the reviewer in similar fashion, or the reviewer commenting that they were harassed.

Clothing and bodyparts should always be modify, agreed. There isn't a single possible rational or intelligent reason for them not to be.

The only possible good reason to sell something no modify is because of the scripts inside it. Sometimes a manual modification can absolutely break scripts that use link numbers. However, a good script and link names can often overcome that. The other time no mod is good is demo or promotional items, but I'm not sure that's relevant anyway. The two popular reasons I hear are A- To protect the textures (which like you said, doesn't), and B- And I swear someone actualy said this, a fairly big name creator too, "No one else in SL can create on my level, so there's no possible way to improve my creation".

Originally I posted in the Help Wanted section of the forums, but it was suggested to me that this could also be down here in the adult section as well, since it can have elements of that. That said, applicants that take the position seriously and as more than just an adult roleplay will be paid more. Since my previous secretary stopped showing up and the replacement wore WAY too many layers of clothing, I am hiring!Pay scales up based on qualifications and attendance. Basic requirements: Minimum 18 years of age (this is SL, you never know!) Female Understand basic SL usage Understand the SL Marketplace Able and willing to type documents, product descriptions, instructions professionally Able to handle customer service inquries (however rare they may be) Minimum of 10 hours per week attendance Active hours should be between 9 PM and 9 AM SL time Being able to use voice/Skype is a plus, but not required Pay Scale: L$ 100 per week: Show up, type some notecards/product descriptions/etc, sometimes test scripts or animations, sometimes help with names or design decisions, don't object to being occasionally objectified! L$ 150 per week: Previous requirements, plus product bug testing, occassionally modeling for product and advertisement posters L$ 200 per week + 15% sales commissions: Previous requirements, plus making prouct images for SL Marketplace (sales commissions active even if employment ends) 20 + hours attendance per week adds L$ 100 to each option L$ 300 signing bonus after first week L$ can be provided for work related expenses, including hair, clothing, or other modeling accessories Attendance will be tracked via login script. Jealous boyfriends/husbands, screen filling gestures, or AO's using the ancient, freebie sexywalk will cause immediate termination. Gadget's Gadgets is an equal opportunity employer and does not descriminate against furries, aliens, robots, or big boobed bimbos (as a matter of fact, being any or all of those things could be a bonus, especially that last one). If interested, send an IM (not a notecard) to Gadget Portal See my marketplace store to get an idea of the types of things that will be typed: https://marketplace.secondlife.com/stores/67953

Yeah, option C. That's some straight out of left field stuff right there.

Qie Niangao wrote: Not really solved, though. It's kind of the tragedy of the commons, where the "commons" is the view everybody is forced to share of the eyesore. I think, nonetheless, there's no hope of "legislating" any resolution to these problems on existing SL Mainland. Too many folks have bought Mainland parcels with the idea that they have a sacrosanct right to squander everybody else's view, and anybody who thinks otherwise Hates Freedom. Instead, the best we can do is shame them. Point and laugh. Ridicule them in public. This won't improve anything -- indeed, they'll just feel all the more self-righteous about their God- Linden-given rights as gun land owners -- but it's all we can do. Seriously?