Second Life Forums Archive - P2P and Griefing

Snakeye Plisskin

Registered User

Join date: 8 Apr 2005

Posts: 153

11-24-2005 07:05

I think one tool is needed for preventing people from land griefing.

1) Ban "Avatar Name"

That's all. This would include an auto-ignore, auto-norez, auto-noscript.

This person would not be able to access the land period. No flyover allowed.

Yes that's right, no flyover. With P2P there can be no arguement that they have a right of passage because nobody will be able to be landlocked.

Ahhh peace and quiet!

Travis Lambert

White dog, red collar

Join date: 3 Jun 2004

Posts: 2,819

11-24-2005 09:05

Heh - I guess if you ask for something too much it gets tuned out.

Its only been in my sig since like..... April

Thanks for being supportive of better tools on the mainland, guys. Even if the proposal I suggested isn't the ticket, I'm hoping that if enough people speak up we'll at least get something.

_____________________

------------------
The Shelter

The Shelter is a non-profit recreation center for new residents, and supporters of new residents. Our goal is to provide a positive & supportive social environment for those looking for one in our overwhelming world.

Leigh Farina

Registered User

Join date: 21 Oct 2005

Posts: 13

11-24-2005 13:12

Well...we have an admission over on the SomethingAwful forums already.

Michi Lumin

Sharp and Pointy

Join date: 14 Oct 2003

Posts: 1,793

11-24-2005 18:12

From: Ingrid Ingersoll

Michi, I agrre with Cris, your point deserves it's own thread.

Why? It won't get listened to.

Tikki Kerensky

Insane critter

Join date: 12 Aug 2004

Posts: 687

11-24-2005 19:00

Just my own off-track 2L, banned folks should have any items they own on your property auto-returned. This gets rid of anything that existed before the ban and stops tricksy placing of items, like rezzing it off your plot and using the edit tools to slide it on.

_____________________

Pudding takes away the pain, the pain of not having pudding.

Argent Stonecutter

Emergency Mustelid

Join date: 20 Sep 2005

Posts: 20,263

11-25-2005 09:48

From: Snakeye Plisskin

Yes that's right, no flyover. With P2P there can be no arguement that they have a right of passage because nobody will be able to be landlocked.

Great, so people who fly for fun will start running into those "No Entry" boxes all over the place at 700 meters, instead of just near ground level.

At the very least you need to be able to distinguish "banning" from "you're not in the group for this private land", though there's a couple of parcels I may be banned from: one I lost control of my experimental plane and someone returned it to me with a nasty note about the "bomb" I'd dropped on them, and another the sim I was in crashed and when I reconnected I was in someone's bedroom at The Wrong Time.

The latter is why I'm heartily in agreement with the argument that landowners should be able to specify where on their land people should be able to rez (if they are at all)... AND I think the default should be "NO" and the behaviour should be "P2P takes you to the nearest rez point someone's designated"... as if anyone could create a mini-telehub on their land.

Michi Lumin

Sharp and Pointy

Join date: 14 Oct 2003

Posts: 1,793

11-25-2005 11:02

From: Argent Stonecutter

Great, so people who fly for fun will start running into those "No Entry" boxes all over the place at 700 meters, instead of just near ground level.

At the very least you need to be able to distinguish "banning" from "you're not in the group for this private land", .

No, I think there would be. Not being in the group is quite different from the 50 avs you can have on ban. I dont think a groupwise ban is a good idea in any case, ever, really.

Pendari Lorentz

Senior Member

Join date: 5 Sep 2003

Posts: 4,372

11-25-2005 12:39

From: Travis Lambert

I'm thinking that the advent of P2P makes the need for better land parcel tools to prevent grief even more important than ever on the mainland (Such as what's discussed in Prop 244).

Do you feel this is a valid concern? Thoughts?

I don't think P2P coming back makes the need for better land parcel tools because I think we need those with or without P2P! hehe

But also, your concern seems it would be delt with the same way people who currently have shops and clubs *right next* to a telehub would deal with them. However it is they do it, I'd say there is already a way to ease your concern while the Lindens work on much needed land tools.

_____________________

*hugs everyone*

P2P and Griefing
Snakeye Plisskin Registered User Join date: 8 Apr 2005 Posts: 153	11-24-2005 07:05 I think one tool is needed for preventing people from land griefing. 1) Ban "Avatar Name" That's all. This would include an auto-ignore, auto-norez, auto-noscript. This person would not be able to access the land period. No flyover allowed. Yes that's right, no flyover. With P2P there can be no arguement that they have a right of passage because nobody will be able to be landlocked. Ahhh peace and quiet!
Travis Lambert White dog, red collar Join date: 3 Jun 2004 Posts: 2,819	11-24-2005 09:05 Heh - I guess if you ask for something too much it gets tuned out. Its only been in my sig since like..... April Thanks for being supportive of better tools on the mainland, guys. Even if the proposal I suggested isn't the ticket, I'm hoping that if enough people speak up we'll at least get something. _____________________ ------------------ The Shelter The Shelter is a non-profit recreation center for new residents, and supporters of new residents. Our goal is to provide a positive & supportive social environment for those looking for one in our overwhelming world.
Leigh Farina Registered User Join date: 21 Oct 2005 Posts: 13	11-24-2005 13:12 Well...we have an admission over on the SomethingAwful forums already.
Michi Lumin Sharp and Pointy Join date: 14 Oct 2003 Posts: 1,793	11-24-2005 18:12 From: Ingrid Ingersoll Michi, I agrre with Cris, your point deserves it's own thread. Why? It won't get listened to.
Tikki Kerensky Insane critter Join date: 12 Aug 2004 Posts: 687	11-24-2005 19:00 Just my own off-track 2L, banned folks should have any items they own on your property auto-returned. This gets rid of anything that existed before the ban and stops tricksy placing of items, like rezzing it off your plot and using the edit tools to slide it on. _____________________ Pudding takes away the pain, the pain of not having pudding.
Argent Stonecutter Emergency Mustelid Join date: 20 Sep 2005 Posts: 20,263	11-25-2005 09:48 From: Snakeye Plisskin Yes that's right, no flyover. With P2P there can be no arguement that they have a right of passage because nobody will be able to be landlocked. Great, so people who fly for fun will start running into those "No Entry" boxes all over the place at 700 meters, instead of just near ground level. At the very least you need to be able to distinguish "banning" from "you're not in the group for this private land", though there's a couple of parcels I may be banned from: one I lost control of my experimental plane and someone returned it to me with a nasty note about the "bomb" I'd dropped on them, and another the sim I was in crashed and when I reconnected I was in someone's bedroom at The Wrong Time. The latter is why I'm heartily in agreement with the argument that landowners should be able to specify where on their land people should be able to rez (if they are at all)... AND I think the default should be "NO" and the behaviour should be "P2P takes you to the nearest rez point someone's designated"... as if anyone could create a mini-telehub on their land.
Michi Lumin Sharp and Pointy Join date: 14 Oct 2003 Posts: 1,793	11-25-2005 11:02 From: Argent Stonecutter Great, so people who fly for fun will start running into those "No Entry" boxes all over the place at 700 meters, instead of just near ground level. At the very least you need to be able to distinguish "banning" from "you're not in the group for this private land", . No, I think there would be. Not being in the group is quite different from the 50 avs you can have on ban. I dont think a groupwise ban is a good idea in any case, ever, really.
Pendari Lorentz Senior Member Join date: 5 Sep 2003 Posts: 4,372	11-25-2005 12:39 From: Travis Lambert I'm thinking that the advent of P2P makes the need for better land parcel tools to prevent grief even more important than ever on the mainland (Such as what's discussed in Prop 244). Do you feel this is a valid concern? Thoughts? I don't think P2P coming back makes the need for better land parcel tools because I think we need those with or without P2P! hehe But also, your concern seems it would be delt with the same way people who currently have shops and clubs right next to a telehub would deal with them. However it is they do it, I'd say there is already a way to ease your concern while the Lindens work on much needed land tools. _____________________ hugs everyone

Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

P2P and Griefing