Paul Hexem

Darrius Gothly wrote: (BTW: I've always found it helpful if you not only outline the problem, but offer a plan of action that gets your issue resolved and makes sense to the Creator as well. At the very least it closes off that loophole best described by the phrase "well I didn't know what you wanted me to do about it!") Actually, I'm right there with you on this one. That's why I offered the support staff the option to refund. "I notice it's transfer, no copy. That means it would be trivial for me to hand everything back for a refund if we can't come to a good solution." Which is when they said they'd have to contact the creator. From the wording though, it sounded like you were right about the disconnect between them- they worded it as waiting for the creator to come online, not proactively trying to contact him. To me, that's ineffective support staff that can't contact you to resolve support issues. I may take it upon myself to drop him an offline and send a notecard. If he gets offlines to email, he may see the message and log in. My concern there is that his entire profile is "Talk to them, don't talk to me", so contacting him may put him in a bad mood right from the get go. I did script a prim on my own parcel to alert me if he logs in though, so I can see if they're telling the truth about him not being online. So far, it hasn't buzzed me. As for the overall idea of LL getting involved... You're right. They want to have a virtual marketplace where they can make money and show off how innovative they are, but they (the lawyers, at least) don't want any responsibility for anything that goes wrong. If they ever stepped up and actually enforced some commercial regulations or rules or any of the consumer/business protections we have in the real world, I bet even the big companies would consider taking the virtual marketplace more seriously. I've already seen MMO's start getting into microtransactions. But as long as it remains the wild west (and it's not even the wild west, because if I do something to fix the problem myself, I risk getting banned- at least in the wild west, you could take the law into your own hands), no serious players will invest in it.

You're right and wrong, Darrius. Yes, prim vendors do show the permissions right inside them. The issue is scripted objects in there. If the object inside the vendor has a no-mod script in it, but it's set to allow mod, inside the vendor will often (incorrectly) show it as no-modify. In that case, you have to take the creator's word that yes, the prims are actually modify. In my case, the sign said modify, transfer, no copy. So, I went ahead and bought it. And in the process of fitting the prims, I discovered that one of the linksets was no-mod. I immediately went to the creator's profile, which said to go talk to his support people. Alright, I can do that. I sent a polite notecard to them, explaining the issue, complete with transaction info and everything. His support people tell me "Sorry, that's just the perms it comes with." When I point out that the sign says modify, they say "Well, there's a resize script in it." I then say scripted is not modify... And they give me the verbal shrug that comes from someone that's done customer service for a little too long. In the end, the support person says there's nothing they can do and that's just the permissions it comes with. I offer to give it back for a refund, since it's transfer/no copy. To which the reply is "I'll ask the creator" (why didn't I just go to the creator in the first place?). That was... three days ago. So if nobody gets back to me on this soon, I'm either stuck with the worthless junk, or hope that an AR clears it up. If it's a "resident to resident dispute" like you think and not actually fraud or failure to deliver a product (as advertised), Dres is right. It's just not worth shopping in-world, since anyone can apparently do whatever they want with no consequences. Whereas on the marketplace, there's a clearly defined option to fight that sort of thing.

Darrius Gothly wrote: Not an "official" opinion, but I'd bet it falls under the great chasm known as "User to User Disputes" ... AKA "tough shiiiiiii .. luck' Let's say it does. How come the marketplace has an option to deal with it, but not in-world?

Look me up in world, I can help you with that.

Cosmic Rust wrote: I've bought a house which has copy/mod rights. I've bought a garage which has copy/mod rights. I need the following building work done.. 1) I need the house changed to include a back door. 2) I need steps adding to the front of the house. 3) I need the garage textures changed to match the house. 4) I need the drive way and sidewalk changed to align with the double garage. 5) When the above is done I need it copied to 6 more plots around the sim. I need this doing ASAP and have L$ waiting to send to someone. Thanks All of that is relatively easy to do except one thing- changing the textures to match. Unless you can give the builder the textures from the house, full perm, that is.

Most of the viewers I've used tend to push one core more than others, although even then I still have no trouble with it.

From what I understand, it's not possible to put two different things on each arm without using layers or Adding instead of Wearing.

Have any of the concerns voiced in the other thread (link below) been addressed at all? http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Merchants/Mesh-Support-on-the-Marketplace/td-p/997805

Now, I know on the marketplace, there's a specific category if a merchant lists the permissions incorrectly where you take take it up with LL (Not As Advertised, Item Permissions Not As Advertised), but I don't see one in-world. If a merchant puts on the sign that an item is modify and you purchase it, and they don't want to honor the permissions on the sign, how do you go after them? Could you use Commerce > Failure to deliver product or service, or is it maybe Fraud > L$?

Pussycat Catnap wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: Oh good advertising idea -- merchants can turn all their content into unmanned vehicles and set them loose. Click for a LM. Fair is fair. Actually this could work if you wanted to get rid of them for good. If enough people start doing this and enough people start complaining about it, then LL would end up having to put a stop to it. Fight fire with fire or something like that. ...Dres I don't see how anyone sees these vehicles as advertising. Unless they've changed lately, they're just vehicles that move about and let people ride them. No signage. They add life to an otherwise dead world. Don't like it, prefer being dead - move to an estate. If they looked good or performed some function, I'd be the first to agree with you. The problem is, they're ugly, useless, and laggy. I'd rather have actual life than that. Give me some clever and/or well made device or an actual person driving by, and I love that. Not these, though.

Pamela Galli wrote: Oh good advertising idea -- merchants can turn all their content into unmanned vehicles and set them loose. Click for a LM. Fair is fair. Let's do it. I'll script your houses to wander the mainland, it'll be great.

Melita Magic wrote: 4. It is advertising - in one case, the vehicles are also sold, as well as start and end at the person's shop. (I'm really unclear why the second main case does this.) And, of course, any click to see who made them leads to a profile in which there is more mention of shops. 5. It seems like favoritism, since clearly we cannot all do the same, or the grid would crash. Anyone wanna bet I would get reported and not get away with it if I made one of my robots wander the grid that way?

Benski Trenkins wrote: Gadget Portal wrote: Serith Haefnir wrote: While the advice "Never upgrade!" is great for SL software No its not, SL software updates fix bugs and add features. Never upgrading SL software is just lazy and bad for people on SL in general. Also, most people, myself included, cannot use IE9, since its only for windows vista and 7. All those on windows XP and non Microsoft platforms are out of luck, and since most of the people accessing SL are on windows XP, telling them to update to IE9 is the same as saying move to vista or windows 7 Well, that's good advice too. Using an out of date, obsolete OS is a bad idea. In some cases it is not smart to update. I pity those that upgraded to Vista, what a waste of money, and so short lived as well. Besides the fact that a whole lot of XP users cannot upgrade due to the high cost of new OS systems. (unless you want to switch to Linux and get rid of IE all together) That said: I am on an XP machine here, why? I do not want to upgrade to w7 at this point, since it is overly expensive, and soon to be obsolete as well. Microsoft made an, in my opinion, critical mistake by making IE 9 for vista or w7 only, and they are continuing this mistake because all Vista users will NOT be able to upgrade to IE10 when it comes out. The result is that IE lost market to mostly Chrome and Firefox and a little to Opera. My suggestion for XP users is either Firefox or Chrome, they are just as advanced and well protected as IE and run on XP. I cannot recommend Opera since I never tried it, my recommendation is purely from a personal experience. You can't expect them to support Windows XP indefinitely, either. It's already ten years old. I don't blame them for making their newer software not compatible with it. A lot of new software on the market now doesn't have XP support anymore, not just IE. As for Vista- I used Vista, now I use Windows 7. Both are improvements on Windows XP, Windows 7 being a significant improvement (although I will admit, I would have had a lot more trouble with Vista had I not built my computer to take advantage of it).

I own a mainland parcel along a road. I often like to drive my own vehicles on said roads. When someone passes my parcel in their own vehicle, that's awesome. When I see these unmanned ones driving by, I have two reactions. "What an ugly piece of junk. Ruins the road and eats up sim resources." Or, alternatively, "Hey. I should make something to wander the mainland and advertise that I script, too! But wait... Isn't advertising on LL land against the rules? How come these people get away with it?"

Good luck.

Void Singer wrote: Gadget Portal wrote: [...]While the advice "Never upgrade!" is great for SL software[...] This is horrible advice, not just for SL but for everything.... The proper advice is "Only upgrade if there is a reason to", meaning bug fixes, security patches, or new features, that you do (or will) use, or that affect you..... fortunately for average users, security patches are forced updates in the SL viewer, so they only have to decide whether a bug fix or new feature is worth upgrading for. Well, I only say it about SL because unless they're fixing bugs or indeed patching security flaws, LL generally follows the motto of "fix it until it's broken". 9 out of 10 people hate every cosmetic update LL puts out. I will agree that I should have phrased that better, though.

I actually like it more, I haven't looked at how to change it. By the way, you can set google search the same way as before- now it's combined with the URL bar.

Tristizia Demonista wrote: Using an older OS might be the best choice, if the newer one is to heavy for the Hardware If your hardware can't run anything newer than XP, it might be time for new hardware, too. SL looks much better on modern hardware.

Serith Haefnir wrote: While the advice "Never upgrade!" is great for SL software No its not, SL software updates fix bugs and add features. Never upgrading SL softare is just lazy and bad for people on SL in general. Also, most people, myself included, cannot use IE9, since its only for windows vista and 7. All those on windows XP and non microsoft platforms are out of luck, and since most of the people accessing SL are on windows XP, telling them to update to IE9 is the same as saying move to vista or windows 7 Well, that's good advice too. Using an out of date, obsolete OS is a bad idea.

Keli Kyrie wrote: Gadget Portal wrote: Keli Kyrie wrote: If they would make this SL software compatible with it I would. That is really the only thing that is holding me back at this point. What problems do you have? I've been using IE9 with SL with no issues. I'm using IE9 to make this post. I have not tried it yet, been afraid to, I heard posts show up blank and that you have to use something called compatibility mode. Is that not true? If so I can get rid of that annoying little update warning and update. You're thinking of Compatibility View. It's a little icon up next to the URL. It's a simple one click toggle. Some sites on the Internet do require it, I won't lie. However, I have it disabled right now, and I can see the SL pages just fine.

Keli Kyrie wrote: If they would make this SL software compatible with it I would. That is really the only thing that is holding me back at this point. What problems do you have? I've been using IE9 with SL with no issues. I'm using IE9 to make this post.

I wouldn't say that, Ishtara. The article doesn't include antivirus software, addons, and as Chris says, missed a couple updates on the other software, so I wouldn't say everyone should switch to IE9. But definitely upgrade to 9 if you do use IE.

I don't want to turn this into a browser war thread, it's supposed to be helpful advice. I know a lot of users do use Internet Explorer. While the advice "Never upgrade!" is great for SL software, it's not good advice for the rest of the Internet. Here's an article that offers some proof- http://www.nsslabs.com/company/news/media-coverage/internet-explorer-9-best-at-catching-socially-engineered-malware.html So if you do use Internet Explorer (and don't want to change brands, for whatever reason), you should definitely upgrade. Those of you that use other browsers, the article doesn't really apply- unless that is, you spend a lot of time on Facebook or something. Then you may want to consider switching.

Mylar wrote: as the company that's hosting the content, if LL receives a DMCA notice they are legally required to take action. Otherwise they can be charged as an accessory to what is essentially a crime. For the most part, LL wants to remain neutral in resident to resident disputes, but in this case they can't. Hosting content on their servers to commit fraud with also makes them an accessory to what is a crime. My guess is it has something to do with DMCA documenting it before going to court, whereas fraud, you'd have to go to court first, and LL thinks not many people will do that over the microtransactions...

Kandee Koray wrote: I personally love documentaries, and ive seen "When Strangers Click" and "You Only Live Twice", i think When Strangers Click, was a step in the right direction, because it showed the relationship between a couple, and that was a softer side and a more kind side of second life. I will be watching the Documentary, because im curious of what "outsiders" will be fed on what SL is. I watched the preview and the first thing that went thru my mind was "why is it with a new doumentary people still have shitty avatars" it dosent do justice to SL when there are THOUSANDS of beautiful avatars, but people keep showing the ass-ugly ones. and why dosent anyone do a documentary on the ART in second life, creating skins, and sculpts and textures, they arent easy and they are an art, or even Photography in SL. Things that make SL beautiful, and wonderful, and the place we "live" not just the addiction, or the shady side. Itd be so nice to see a documentary on the beautiful art, and amazing artists in second life, and shows just how amazing it is. Because no one would watch that. People only react to bad news and depravity.