Buyer rezes the item, and notes the object has Current Owner permissions of -M +C -T. Yay! That is correct! Everyone is happy!
Please tell us that that statement was a typo? Otherwise, it now qualifies as the single most bizzare statement I have ever come across in a posted response to a technical question. Seriously... I'm not trying to be inflammatory, here... but from the outside (meaning, in the eyes of someone who doesn't have the source code to walk through) the end results seem to be both arbitrary and unpredictable.
Bottom line... no, everyone isn't happy. Instead, I suspect that a fair number of us are actually quite confused.
So, some questions:
1) Why is the expectation that the next-owner permissions set in inventory be preserved intact for the next owner unreasonable?
2) If the 'system as designed' in fact does not preserve the next-owner permissions set in inventory for the next owner, why allow them to be changed in inventory at all?
Thanks for your patience
