Should NO MOD also mean MODing the Objects Contents?

Post & Poll Sparked by this Jira: http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-10525

Should the permission "NO MOD" also include the inability remove contents from the "NO MOD" object?

I have purchased a few NO MOD things that required my editing the contents to make the object operate properly, as i desired.

I bought a No Mod Husky GFX Dagger - very cool and nice detailed. But it had this ugly habbit of auto-activating the unsheathing script thus causing the dagger to disappear on my thigh leaving me with a blank sheath. So after being tired of having this expensive dagger that no one see's and that kept going invisible. I yanked the scripts out the contents and now the dagger works perfectly doing what i want it to do - sitting on my thigh looking pretty when i wear it.

If the object were No-Mod, No editable contents, then i would have wasted my 600L on a poorly functioning costume item. But because i could rip out the contents of the object it was salvageable.

I know I am reluctant to buy NO MOD objects, but if the contents also became NO MOD, as in you cannot pull out what is there, then for me, the NO MOD perms really drops the value of an object depending on what it is.

What do you think?

I thought this was how it already worked.

I could be wrong, but my experience has always been that I cannot edit the contents of a no mod object. I just tried in world to add or remove scripts from a no mod item with the same result. I got a dialog saying I could delete the script, but when I did it I get a pop-up saying I can't delete and the script stayed in place.

How were you able to change the scripts in a no mod item? Maybe I am missing something (wouldn't be the first time).

Same here. Last time I tried to take a hover text script out of a no mod painting, it shouted at me in chat that I wasn't allowed to modify the item. At first it looked like the script had been deleted, but when I went back and looked at it again, the script had reappeared in the object.

You cannot *edit*, but you can remove.
It is, indeed, very useful for, say, ripping out those clicking sounds of footwear.
If it is no-mod but copy, however, you'll move a copy of the content (script) to your trash, leaving one still in the object.

-And incidentally, removing a hovertext script does not remove the text. The text is a property of the prim once set. You need a script specifically to set it to nothing.

Yeah, I now know the hover text will be stuck to the object (this was quite some time ago) but in this case the script would reappear in the contents of the object, not just stuck hover text.

I read the Jira after I posted the first time. I think what they are asking for is the ability to make objects that are mod but without the ability to mod the contents rather than No Mod with No Mod contents.

can't remember, can you also delete specific prims from a larger no-mod object?

No.

Last time I tried to delete scripts from a no-mod object I got the stupid "NOT ALLOWED" shout, and the script in place. Has that been fixed? I have a bunch of badly scripted aircraft I'd love to be able to use as props, but I didn't pull the scripts out back when that was possible.

You do not delete them in the contents, you drag the scripts out and into your inventory to get them out of the object in question.

Doesn't that only work if the script is no copy? If the script is copy it stays in place and you get an additional copy in your inventory.

Ah, so you can only break products like this if you can't take a backup. Joy.

Linden Labs never DID explain why they removed the ability to delete the contents of no-mod objects.

There was an exploit tied to it that allowed you to bypass the permissions system.

Ultimately I just had to IM the creator for a replacement of some otherwise great shoes that for some reason had bling inseperable from the buckle. It wasn't a matter of the bling being acquired by the prim, I simply couldn't get rid of, delete, move, or do anything else with the script.

He was very accomodating so I did not ask why anyone would make something annoying AND impervious to repair.

The problem is that not every creator is going to answer your IMs and requests for personal "customization" (even if customization means fixing your item to work as it was supposed to in the first place).

The current inability to remove items from object's contents is temporary and a bug - if you read the pop-up the client displays, it explains that removing items is allowed - and for a moment, the client tries to do just that, before finally failing in that procedure due to a backend bug.

This used to be possible for years until it got broken awhile ago and has been low on LL's priority list for fixing.

As a creator myself, I do not trust creators to always deliver what I have in mind. There's a long list of items that i'd never have paid money for if I hadnt had the basic freedom of having the limited ability of modifying its contents by removing selected functionality.

If you're a customer, and you purchase an item, and you try to remove something from its contents and you get a detailed warning message that tells you that "although allowed, this act may break your product" - then this should be enough for you to understand and accept the risk that you're taking on yourself that you may break your product and have to go and pay for a new copy if you indeed manage to kill it.

Removing this basic ability only means giving more control to the creators at the expense of the customers who are not planning anything nefarious.

It is not a bug and is not going to be fixed. LL specifically stated that adding and removing items to a no mod object allowed an exploit which anyone can use to get around the permissions system. Exploit was discovered, everyone was kicked from grid, patch was installed on server software and we have not been able to add or remove since then.

the only thing is people script limitations into things. limited time, limited use, these have very real functions. and I use one, I offer amusement park rides in both full copy, as well a scripted rentals. and if people could just pull the autodestructs out, then what use is this even having such a business. but I also offer a huge price difference as well. so if you want less restrictions, the costs are higher. and many businesses function in a similar manner.

The original is removed from the object and placed into your inventory.

But now i understand a bug stops this from happening currently? Must have happened in the most recent release.

Again, this is not a bug. It is by design by LL and has been this way for a few months. Forgot if the LL statement was in the Scripting forum or sldev but some of us noticed the difference right away and the explanation was given. It is also why you can not reset no-mod scripts. Everyone remember when llTargetOmega was borked and the Lindens themselves had to hit the grid to reset the scripts?

When I tried it in world on a copy/no transfer/no mod item this afternoon, that is what happened.

CRAP See my disclaimer and sorry Briana but my brain was still fixated on the deleting, adding, resetting scripts in no mod objects. What you described is the only workaround I know to that and that still works. Have heard that you can confuse the sim by hammering the object to actually put a new script back in it but I haven't ever tried it.

See http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-421 (Cannot delete contents from no-modify objects) - it's noted as fix pending although you can still drag the contents of the no mod object to your inventory, and if the contents are no copy, they'll no longer be in the no mod object.

Please look at the date of the last response from a Linden in that jira entry. It was November 29, 2007. That branch refered to was merged into the main a loooong time ago.

Answer isn't above.
But it depends on what is contents and why.
Was things there by mistake i.e hover script or was it was
new content maker mistake or intentional script to make the device
work?
Either way when you buy something from someone else you're
subject to their preferences in how it is used or not used, if you
don't want to put up with the lack of customization don't buy it.
Hire someone who can make the item you want to your personal
preferences or make it yourself.
I understand why some things are no mod because modifiable object
can be put through one of those copying devices and strip the creator
name out of the field and make the owner a creator.
But some things truthfully regardless of that I think as content making hobbyist
should be modifiable somethings for obvious reasons shouldn't be.
Personally it other content makers choice in what permission they set but
there some things they do won't win points or win me over as customer ever
because of this.
There some things like clothes I will never again buy especially if they are no modify.
There only somethings I wouldn't buy anyway because I hate shopping and some
things other designers do make me very grumpy screaming and angry elf.
I don't complain to designer, I just don't go back and eventually I quit going all
together.
If I can't make it or it doesn't help me learn to make my own things I don't
need it.
When I put up clothes of my own for sale they are always modify/transfer but that is personal choice.
And if it is copyable no transfer.
I don't even bother trying to sell furniture or individual textures unless it is like
flowers and trees on a prim.
But if I built a scripted object for sale it would have to be no mod.
At first I didn't get the no copy/no modify thing now I do and often some cases with certain things that have copy permissions that I unrezz/rezz often become annoying
duplicates that I have to clean up later.

No they didn't. They implied it was an exploit, but the ONLY exploit of the permissions system that it involved was that people were able to make objects no-transfer no-copy using it, which bypasses that "right of first sale" that Linden Labs used to talk about. And it didn't *fix* it, it *enabled* it.

They took out the "right of first sale" working out of the description of the permission system after that.

And nobody could come up with any real exploit of the permissions system involving it. The only hypothesized exploit that was even vaguely reasonable is than it would allow you to "break" gambling tokens used by some scripted games. Given the subsequent gambling fiasco, that's hardly a valid rationale.