[Source Code]Anti-Autoreturn, the right way

This is an incredibly simple script that you just drop into any object, and it will never be returned. JCool410 Wildcat made the original, I slightly edited, then Molecular Chemistry edited some. I'm only realeasing this because I got pissed at a friend buying a horrible one for >>5k<<!!!!!

https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Jana_Kamachi/NoReturn

ok, confused... how does that prevent autoreturn? is the sim considering the changed object to be a new instance for the purpose of autoreturn time? also, this may not be a great thing to publicize... just saying

"lso, this may not be a great thing to publicize... just saying"

I normally would never have, but I saw one for sale at 5k!!
Yes, it forces the sim to think of it as a new object, and resets the tim.

NO NO NO! This cannot be used for griefing. if you sit on it, it'll stop working. Durr, not that dumb, thanks, plz.

Technically, if this indeed circumvents autoreturn you'd have been better off posting this in the JIRA as a bug. Because that's what it is.

Autoreturn after all exists for a reason. Sim and parcel owners will definitely be mad at you if this thing really works.

I could care less. Its code. It works. If you want it in Jira, add it to jira. I go where the Lindens lead.

Doesn't seem to work.

It delinks, but never relinks. Looks like it tries to relink to itself, rather than the remaining linkset.

Not to mention that delinking/relinking can cause prim drift and all other kinds of weirdness over time. It's an interesting idea, though.

Sorry, there are two versions, this one is for SINGLE Prim items. And yes, thats right, it links/delinks from >itself< lol. Posted one for multi-prim objects below it.

that's helpful to know (and upon thought should be obvious) but may not help someone that is being griefed by something including this...

they aren't ALL scripters, most will just freak out and yell for the lindens "but I set auto-return and it's not going away, blah blah blah"

choice is yours, just a suggestion, it's also why I didn't describe the action in my post

and yeah, the stupid 5k thing.... I hate when people rip others off for simple stuff... had some idiot trying to sell a chat repeater for 500 one day, so newbies could have "cool green text"... then had the nerve to get mad at me when I told them not to buy it and dropped a free to copy version on the ground

I'd get mad, too. Not because you were trying to be helpful and save someone some cash, but because you did it in my store. Quickest way to a legitimate ban from someone's store, as far as I an concerned.

I get REAL tired of seeing people go "that's a ripoff!!" for legitimate business offers in virtual worlds. People will pay whatever they want for whatever they want. It's called "the price the market will bear". There's nothing wrong or illegal or immoral about it. A "ripoff" is when you sell something to someone which turns out not to be what was advertised before the sale, worth far less than what they really paid for.

It's the same kind of attitude I see all the time when the prices are in line with the market value of something; someone still goes "That's a ripoff!" at some point. Competition is fine, but Apple doesn't have to tolerate someone coming into their store selling cheapo eMachines to their customers.

yeah, see there's a slight distinction here, I wasn't in someone's shop, I was in one of the older telehub areas. if I *HAD* been in a store, I'd have probably left in disgust before seeing anything like the above scenario, but even assuming I did happen to be there long enough to see it I certainly wouldn't drop a free to copy version on the store owners land, I'd simply IM the customer that if they would like to wait a second I'll give them exactly the same thing for free and full permissions and drop it on them on the way out, along with landmarks to decent freebie areas and links to the forums...

and no offense, but I don't believe scamming newbs especially for free / ridiculously simple items in any way qualifies as a "legitimate business offer", regardless of the legal legitimacy, it's morally bankrupt to prey on people's naivette about a new environment. even moreso if the scammer did none of the work to create said product.

now maybe the OP's example was a person trying to limit possible misuse of something simple but with potential repercussions by setting an outrageous price, but more likely given that knowledge, the person was just "taxing" people with a potential to misuse, since if they truly wanted to see it go unused they wouldn't offer it. sorry I don't see any moral high ground there either.

So let me get this right. Just because YOU are annoyed by some person that sells it, your giving this away, which btw creates more of a problem than it solves, as it forces the land owners to manually delete their stuff. This is not something that anyone could use for good purposes.

Yeap. Guess what Bla. I could care less whatchya think. Its code. It works. Up to the lindens to decide if it stays or goes, your opinion means nothing in the scheme of things.

It goes. I've reported this to the LL security list and received a response that they were able to reproduce the bug (the ability to circumvent autoreturn) and will be prioritizing a fix in an upcoming release.

Screenshot of the response please. >Screenshot.<

*shrug* you didn't specify, so I defaulted to the most common situation where you could interject between a buyer and a seller. What's someone doing selling stuff at a telehub anyway?



Well, no offense, but who are you to set the litmus on what is a "scam" and what isn't, for anyone but yourself? What price is too high? Maybe what is a scam to you is a good deal to someone else. I've been offered L$10,000 for a toy that took less than an hour to make in my free time. The customer was very happy to pay that much for one, and was very happy with it afterwards. If someone wants what I have to sell and is willing to pay a certain amount for it, who has the right to say ANYthing about that transaction, other than the buyer or the seller? If they could have waited X amount of time and found it for super cheap or free, or paid big bucks and had it now now now, what difference does it make?

as for selling someone else's work, that's an issue between the creator and the seller. I'm not intending to open the "freebie reseller" can of worms in this case; I am strictly pointing out the notion of pricing items and who should care.

You see it all the time at parks, events, theatres, wherever you have a captive audience. You can pay $4 for a 16 oz soda, or pay 75 cents when you get out/home/whatever. It's the nature of business to seek profit. It should be the nature of consumers to shop around for anything, but if you gotta have it now now now, well, pay the nice man and get your rubber band and paper clip merchandise.

UNLESS the vendor is committing fraud via deception, telling you that you are paying for one thing, but actually selling you something else of lesser value, there's no "ripoff" or "scam" being perpetrated. The customer is willing to pay the price asked for what is up for sale. If anyone has a problem with that practice, the natural counter to it is competition. Set up freebie stores everywhere newbies tend to congregate.

The natural consequence of this attitude is people who want something cheap or for free will bellyache "you're ripping people off!!" for something which took many man-hours to develop, test, and market, even if it is sold for a discount from what you would probably consider "a fair price". It's all the same principle, just the flipside of the same coin. Question again: Who determines what is a "fair price"? Answer again: The Vendor and The Customer.



I've made orbiter weapons but will never sell them. However, the same thing applies. If someone wants to sell it for X price, the only person in the world who can determine if that price is too high is the potential buyer. Regardless of why the vendor set the price, that determination belongs to those two ADULTS, and no one else.

Caveat Emptor.

I'm of the opinion that there's nothing wrong with being educated. If you're in a store buying some bread, and the guy shopping next to you says, 'Hey man, you can get the same bread for one tenth the price at the store next door,' are you going to say, 'OMFG, I'll decide for myself, thanks!?' Somehow, I doubt it. As far as open sourcing the code, that's the priority of any individual who knows how to create it.

Thank you!

t took the liberty of backing this up both locally on one of my wiki account subpages in case this does get deleted, security through security doesn't work, plus anyone can code this if they really want (in retrospect I'm somewhat jealous I didn't think of this) so nothing in LSL is really secret.

..and you'll note that nothing I have said would go against such. I am all for education, too. That is part of competition. Where I draw the line is someone going into said store and dropping down freebies or vendors on the spot, or causing a disruption in the store.

Set up a store next door, peaceably protest outside on public land, educate consumers with signs and handouts, whatever. Just keep it clean, honest, and above the belt, lest you become worse than those you protest against.

Just remember, the line from just attacks on a crooked businessman to unjust attacks on an honest one can easily become blurred and turn into harassment. If you do make a mistake, be prepared to take responsibility for it.

Oh, and *my* likely response to that would be "thanks! I'll look into it and decide for myself! ". I still may come back in to spend 10x more, as I may have my own very valid reasons for doing so.

Pssh... why? What good would a screenshot I could easily fake do? Suffice it to say that LL's aware of this exploit.

Of course they are, I gave a copy of this script to Dan Linden and showed him how to use it over 3 months ago. Everything I release thats a bug in any way I give to him first. You note, I've never released anything really harmful. Want me to release a script that breaks everything linked in a sim into individual prims? >>EH<< no.

I think it's arguable that that's a bug, it's more something that LL probably didn't think of when they implemented auto return, since LSL wasn't entirely developed all at once and presumably not by one person it's nearly impossible to think of every implication and effect of every function and especially scripts using said functions.

Even if LL fixes this one up I'm sure there's other ways to script an object to have the same effect of auto return avoidance and I bet LL knows this and thus why this "bug" hasn't been fixed yet.

"Even if LL fixes this one up I'm sure there's other ways to script an object to have the same effect of auto return avoidance and I bet LL knows this and thus why this "bug" hasn't been fixed yet."

Many, as soon as this ones patched I'll release another.

Does llRezObject followed by llDie of the original object still keep the first timer? if it does then that's an obvious one that doesn't work, if it doesn't then that's a huge one that I think will never be changed since that's fairly intended behavior, but I can think of a few less obvious ones that probably work... And yes, there are legitimate reasons to bypass auto return, though I can't think of any off the top of my head... even if there weren't though doing it may be bad, but knowledge is never a bad thing, it's a good thing that everyone should have and if they use it badly then condemn them for their actions not for seeking out knowledge and having it.

So thats what that script does. I was wondering. Has anyone filed an issue on jira yet?

Always smarter to report something then not.

From my experience with what LL uses to define exploits, this doesn't qualify for the 10k bounty. It can't be used for theft. It could be argued that this is a form of gray goo.

This should be fixed by when two objects link, the older object time is kept in the temp queue.