[Source Code]Anti-Autoreturn, the right way

I can't say it's an an official exploit, since it's legitimate code, but I do consider it a bug.

That being said, if I were to find anyone on my land exploiting this 'bug' to circumvent autoreturn policies I have set up for a reason, I will ban you from my sims and file a report.

actualy I can think of an obvius way to use this for theft but I'l not mention it since I don't want to turn the thred into "who can think up the nastest way to use a simple script.

For my part I like to know all I can even if it means a level playing field, rather than being suprised when something that someone had, for all good intentions, tryed to keep quiet ends up being used by people with no good intentions at all.

I find myself agreeing with diferent parts of peoples arguments. But the bottom line is buyer bewear, the same as in the real world there will always be people looking to take advantage of ignorance, as oftern as not an inosent ignorance too such as tradespeople fleeceing a customer who is trusting their honesty and integrity in pricing work. The only way around this is for the customer to look around for themseves or seek advice or tp in a friend who knows more.

But it is a moral question and I know that most of us try to price our things at a reasonible level wether becasue we just think its right or to compeet the results tend to be the same for the customer and generaly peopel who overcharge find their sales dropping. It only becomes immoral when you have people delibretly targeting a vonerible group such as people ripping off tourists who arn't confident with the value of the native currency.

A more positive question though could something like this be used to play around with the temp on rez timer?

To me that sounds like a good fix.



No. When a temp object is rezzed, all the prims get their own status. Using this won't affect a temp object at all, it'll still die in 1 minute.

~~~
Official Alt of Jana Kamachi

I sure do, if you're not going to email [email]security@lindenlab.com[/email] about it (assuming that wasn't just a hypothetical question). I'd rather have something like that out in the open than just lurking around waiting for a truly evil person to discover, rather than a merely curious person like you.

Just because they didn't think of it doesn't mean it's not a bug.

If you want SL to get better, and want to avoid many of these serious unforseen consequences, requirements bugs and design bugs need to be treated with the same disdain as code bugs.

And I don't think just saying "buyer beware" is a good attitude, either, because it hurts other sellers too.

If that underhanded merchant who's selling a freely-available item for L$500 in their store is succeeding at doing so, then they'll have those L$500s available to spend on having a higher place in Classifieds than you. And if all they have to do when caught is to take down the freebie item, they still have that..

This to, to quote Spock, illogical. What your essentially saying is that every use of every bit of code needs to be evaluated which is impossible and judged as good or bad which is also impossible. If a piece of code is used for good purposes even if it's not the intended effect (Sit position code for example) it's heralded as a great way to create objects and if LL fixes it people scream however if a piece of code isn't even used in this case but exposed that it could be used for less desirable (arguably) means than it is a bug and has to be fixed.

It's the only realistic attitude you CAN have. No one is going to stop anyone from selling freebies, whether made by the seller, or someone else. They may stop themselves because people are complaining, or because competition moved in next door, but no one is going to stop them from doing it.

Tourists are usually pretty savvy about spending their money, if they have any sense at all. The majority of tourist trap scams revolve around false advertising rather than overpricing "junk". Most people can tell whether something is worth its price or not, and make that decision for themselves.



Easily solved. Compete, compete, compete. Make your own equivalent items and sell them cheaper right next door, or pay the cost to provide other people's free stuff. YadNi has done it for a long, long time. He charges (or did, anyway) a single L$ for lots of the boxes of stuff on his shelves. I don't think that is an unfair practice, myself, and apparently, it is successful enough to keep his place going.

It's not an issue with linking and unlinking in scripts. It's an issue with the way auto return permissions function. I don't think anyone here can say they want someone to be able to circumvent permissions they have set on their land for a reason, whether its a way to beat autoreturn, or perhaps a way to enter property a person is banned from.


Linking and unlinking does exactly what it's supposed to do. In this case, auto return does not and needs to be looked at.

Hmm. I have been trying to think of a legitimate use for this particular use of an LSL bug (apart from "I think I should be able to put things down on this chap's land and he doesn't and I'm right", which is hard to consider "legitimate" in general really) and I can't. Which is peculiar. Normally, I can think of at least one or two decent uses for these things. Am I missing something obvious?

Either way, it is useful to know the existence of these things; I am a little behind sometimes on the current state of LSL peculiarities, thank you, original person, for posting it.


Well, people _can_ stop other people from selling freebies; posting up signs, complaining to mall owners, more widespread publicity, that sort of thing. Freebie-selling is widely regarded as a Bad Thing by almost everyone and people are unwilling to associate themselves with it publicly. I have asked people to remove free items of my own construction (clearly noted as "not for resale" from sale without any threats or anything being involved and they have done so, even if not with very good grace. One can't do it before the fact of course, but it is quite possible after the fact.

Sure, but that doesn't stop them from selling them, as they can go somewhere else and set up shop again on another alt.

I'm not saying selling freebies that are "not for resale" is right (in actuality, I wanted to avoid getting into this particular discussion), but there's no way to really stop it. You can't take the freebies back, and LL isn't going to get involved. Yes, you can delay individual instances of it, making them move, but it isn't ever going to go away completely.



No argument there. Personally, the freebies I give out of my own are either no transfer, or are full-perms and I don't care what they do with them. If someone can take something I made in 10 minutes and make a buck off of it, more power to them. I've much bigger fish to fry than worry about who's making a buck off my table scraps.

someone told me llBreakLink/llCreateLink was now broken, but I just tested it and it works fine. Guess they were mistaken.

@OP:
I have a funny thing, regarding permissions and expectations, which is why I made my remark. I am glad that you made LL aware of it, and it is true that there are other ways around it (I know, I built one for leaving surprise gifts to friends)... but perhaps this is the impetus LL needs to do something about it, and it is VERY useful to know that it can be countered in most cases by sitting on the object. which I wouldn't have known without the thread so... thanks =)

@Talarus:
common to whom? it's not a very good habit to assume something w/o supporting facts, and certainly an unappreciated accusation.

who am I? fair question, I'm an informed semi-experienced person, who just happened to have more information than the buyer, and offered it freely... the fact that I chose to inform them is generally called being considerate. having a voice, and compassion I have every right to offer that information.

I think everyone should care when someone is preying on anothers naivette. whether that be a newb, someone ignorant of other options, or a child. eventually in some venue we will all be naive and/or ignorant, it's a common courtesy issue.

The vendor IS commiting commiting fraud in the case I presented, by preying on naive newbs, with the deception that his product is some obscure hard too find, create, or get, item thus artificially inflating it's 'value', never mind said newbs lack of knowledge of common pricing. perhaps it is not the LEGAL definition of fraud, but it certainly fits the ETHICAL definition. I think information is a pretty good natural counter to that.

...and any other informed party who knows a better comparision and is willing to share it, thus educating the buyer to further their own determination.

any informed person can determine a fair price by comparison. no one here is 'bellyaching', they are educating, it's one thing to say "that costs too much" and quite another to say "you can get the exact same thing at XYZ" for less/free. the former is whining, the later is informing, and the final decision is still always the buyers.

Interesting position to take given the our last exchange, don't you think? but it the spirit of sharing I'll give you my rewrite...

Erudire Emptor, Caveat Venditor.

Since we seem to be dancing around the same points, I am just going to sum up:

1) The two most concerned parties in any business transaction are the Buyer and the Seller.
2) It is incumbent on Buyers to determine if what they are about to purchase is worth the money to be paid for said item. No one else can make that determination for them, and once done, the responsibility for said transaction is theirs alone.
3) Those who seek to "inform" others may suffer from naivete themselves about the transaction, or may have ulterior motives which are not in the best interests of the Buyer OR the Seller, and thus can damage legitimate business deals. As such, the Buyer still must determine the value proposition of the transaction for themselves, DESPITE what anyone tells them. They should take any claims from any third party with the same sized serving of salt as anything the Seller tells them.
4) Interjecting in the Seller's face or in his store is bad form, and justifies "getting mad" and any other responses from said Seller (including ejection/banishment from the premises).
5) Competition is the natural counter to overpricing. If something "simple" is being sold for a premium by a Seller, then the proper way of dealing with it is to take advantage of the business opportunity to undercut that Seller.

so according to your above points...
it's the buyers job to be informed, but no one should inform the buyer, because it's not their business. Meanwhile, it's perfectly ok for sellers to fleece their customers, pretending rarity through obscurity, and/or preying on customer ignorance. And the only way that anyone is allowed to counter that is to open a redundant business that could just as easily been provided as information?

I cry BS on the lot of it, every person has a right to interject information, on both sides. The buyer makes a decision on what they know, if they don't know a better alternative, it's a kindness to tell them of one (facts matter, motives don't). If the seller wants to be mad about that, let them, maybe they should market more competitively, or stop trying to fleece people. Seller wants to ban someone for informing people on their land, they have that right, it's their land. But if they were smart they'd ask for a landmark too, compare their product to the competition and market competitvely, whether by feature or price.

here's my summation. You trolled my post making an accusation, when it was clarified that that was NOT the situation, instead of saying 'oops sorry' or some other simple apoplogy you shrugged and continued to troll the thread with a hypothetical situation that did not apply to ANYTHING anyone had said. I find this to be very rude, obnoxious, and not even a slightly useful contribution to the thread topic. you want to rant how everyone against poor vendors... fine, either add something to thread topic as well, or do it in another thread located in an appropriate forum. I personally regret engaging in the conversation with you, since it's just as meaningless as the last one. Should it occur it again, I will feel no need to clarify or defend myself, and will instead honor you with the second slot on my ignore list. please feel free to get in the last word, I'm done with the (sub)topic.

/hijack
(with appologies to the OP)

No problem..............

~~~~~~~~~~
Jana Kamachi