llRequestPermissions Dialog Box

A friend of mine had an object that requests my permission to animate me, but instead of the usual "This object would like to animate your avatar" Dialog, it displays a customized messge with a Yes or No button. When I click the Yes button, it behaves as if i have given permissions. Does anyone know how to do this? The llRequestPermissions doesn't have a secret hidden parameter for Dialog string, does it? Its driving me nuts trying to figure it out. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

Hmm, let me try rewriting this post, since all our posts got wiped.

You shouldn't be able to change the text in a request permissions dialog box.

Were you sitting on the object, or did you have it attached? Animation permission requests made by objects you're sitting on and attachments are granted automatically

It was for a hug animator. My friend attaches the object, then says /hug Reina Therian, and a dialog box comes down saying something like "avatar name would like to hug you, is this ok" and then the yes/no buttons. When i click yes, it animates me. I never see the usual request permissions dialog. I know that i need to give permission, so i assumed that it was the permissions dialog box with the words changed.
I dont understand how you do something like that?

Francis is correct, there is no way to change the dialog box that is popped up when calling llRequestPermissions.

You're talking about a totally different "request of permission," request of permission to hug another avatar. Scripts may pop open a custom dialog using the llDialog function. This is what your friend is doing with his hugging attachment.It isnt required, but it isnt the same thing as llRequestPermissions(PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION).

Attachments are automatically granted PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION when they are attached.
==Chris

Ok. I understnad what you're saying, but Im still kind of confused. Does that mean that i can be animated (to hug back) without granting my permission? When my friend attaches the hug animator, it animates both of us. but all i get is the dialog box about the hug. I dont get a request for my permission, but it animates me anyway. Why is that? I know that if you're the owner and you are sitting on it or have it attached it doesn't need your permission, but Im not the owner. I don't get it. Are you saying that if my friend has it attached, that it will automatically grant permission to trigger animations on ayone? that doesnt seem to make sense.

Umm... it does ask if its okay, right? If you click 'no' will you still be animated, or will it leave you alone? So it isn't using the standard permission request dialog... it hardly seems like its doing something without your permission if you clicked okay when it asked you.

Next time, click 'no' and see what happens. If it doesn't animate you, then it isn't doing anything without permission, right?

That's not the question here.

Thanks, Mole... I don't know what I would have done without your helpful post.

Perhaps you could tell me what the question is... I thought Reina asked if the script was animating without permission, despite a dialog asking for and being granted that very permission (even though it wasn't the standard permission request, it still asked and was answered). Maybe you can enlighten me as to the question that you saw and I didn't, instead of throwing in a one-liner non-helpful message.

I feel I should chip in here too.

I've also seen this unusual dialog as one of my friends has the hug bracelet (or whatever it is). It's definitely not the usual request permissions dialog and it does ask if you would like to be hugged by the owner (and explicitly names the owner).

I was following this thread because I was curious as to how it works. I can see how you would ask another avatar for permissions to animate them (specifying the avatars key in llRequestPermissions) but I don't see how that would produce a dialog that askes them if they would like to be hugged.

The question was "How is this object using a non-standard message in it asking for permission?"

Read Christopher Omega's post.
Attached objects do not pop up a dialog box in order to request animation permissions. They are automatically granted. The popup box you get is a different kind of request. Even though the script may have permission to animate you, you may not want to engage in a hug with said person. It's just an llDialog popping up from your attachment to confirm that you do want to start the hug animation.

I hate to contradict you Christopher, but that's not it. I don't have an attachment. My friend does. When she does /hug Hinkley I get a message asking if I want to be hugged.

Ok.. Both Eggy & Christopher have said that when an object is attached, it doesn't ask for permission. I get that.

I understand that it doesn't ask THE OWNER(the one wearing the attachment) for permission. But that's not my question.

The attachment animates TWO people. the OWNER, and THE HUGEE.

So, Christopher, and Eggy, are you guys saying that, in addition to not asking permission from the OWNER while attached, that it also doesn't ask permssion from THE HUGEE while THE OWNER has it attached?
You guys have both managed to skillfully dodge that portion of the question in your replies

BTW, thank you everyone for helping me with this. Hopefully we can get to the bottom of it.

Ursula, I understand what you're saying, but it is true that that's not really my question.
I do "give my permission" but not in a way that script would understand. When i talk about permission, i mean LSL's required use of the llRequestPermissions function, not just me clicking ok on a regular Dialog box.
Thank you, though

If Eggy & Christopher mean what they say as an answer, doesn't that mean, that i could attach a script that animates people and run around SL animating everyone without NEEDING them to click on a dialog box? That seems a little too flawed to be the case.

Hahaha, you had me laughing out loud, Reina. Nice one.

OK guys, stop changing Reina's question into one that you know the answer to. ))) She's explained the relevant scenario very clearly.

I haven't begun to play with perms yet, or I'd test it myself.

I honestly can't see a way to do this. I have one of the "hug attachments" and after reading this thread it doesn't seem possible for the attachment to work the way it does, and yet it works (very well). Perhaps the creator of this would like to shed some light?? (unless you want to keep your secret, hehe).

Reina wants to know if it is possible to cause another avatar to perform an animation without using the standard permissions dialogue. Because if I can use llDialogue to ask the player "Raz wants to hug you. Do you want a hug?" and the player clicks "yes", and if by them selecting "yes" gives me permission to animate them, then in theory I could do anything I wanted to do with them, because I've bypassed the standard permissions dialogue. So again, can I animate another avatar if they choose "yes" to a llDialogue message?

The "Hug" script seems to bypass the permissions dialogue, because I have a friend with the "Hug" bracelet who I've hugged by accepting their offer. But I'm accepting in good faith. If the one offering to hug me had bad intetions, then I would be setting myself up for trouble. So why couldn't I just debit money from someone by fooling them to click "yes" to a llDialogue message? Or cause them to perform some offensive animation? I wouldn't do that of course, but some freaks would.

I thought about this before. There's a reason why I don't warn people about this.

You can't, because LSL doesn't allow you to request debit permissions (and others), to people other than the owner of the script.

As I understand LSL, the description of the behaviour of this script is impossible. If you can demonstrate to me that this somehow works, drop me an IM.

I'm not entirely sure I follow... from what I gather someone (av a) has a hug attachment. Who tells it somehow to hug another AV (av b). When it dose so av b is asked if it is ok to be hugged by llDialog. then if they respond yes av a hugs av b.. when this happens dose av b move.. or just stand there while being hugged? (if the latter no perms required)

Yes Legith, that's what's being reported as happening, by two people now (Reina and Rysidian). Av b does the animation too, despite not wearing the attachment.

The question is, how come. We're taking on faith that it does actually occur.

I also had the hug attachment, but unfortunately I can't test it, its been broken since the 1.5 update for me...

Maybe the attachment doesn't actually animate the avatar B, but just moves it closer to avatar A, which actually does the hug animation? This can probably be done with a few tricks without requesting any special permissions. Could anyone with the hug attachment check if this might be the case?

MSo, the hug attachment definately does animate avatar a and b. The hug is a two sided animation definately.

From reading the last few posts here, and reading between the lines, it sounds like you are able to bypass the usual permissions dialog with the llDialog() in certain cases (such as this one with permission to animate but maybe not with permission to debit money).

I'll definately be testing this one tonight!

Yeah. the attachment DEFINITELY animates both avatars. It doesn't just move them closer together. They both lift up their arms to hug.
Well, I see this question has stumped everyone. Let me know if anyone figures it out
thanks

Ah, sorry for not responding sooner. Im in a bit of a tight situation in RL.

Before I venture further into lecture, mind a question?
Is the huggee wearing any special attachments?

==Chris

Nope. No special attachments at all, Chris.

If anyone who thinks they can help is interested in a demonstration, IM me in world, and I can show it to ya.

I talked to one of the people who've posted in this thread.

As it turns out, they were just confused. It's the hug attachment Launa Fauna and I made together. It doesn't replace the default animation permission request message, because that's just not possible

It's possible that other posters in this thread are also confused. So, move along, nothing to see here.....

If you're still convinced that you can replace the message, send me an IM to give me a demo or drop me a line where I can get one myself