Solution to "Impeach Bush", et al

The answer is all laid out for us already by the omnibenevolent Lindens.

This is not unprecedented: people pay large, monthly, cable bills for shite programming which doesn't have advertisements (unless you count 12 minutes per hour of self-promotion for other bad programming in which case it is like free television with less car and beer adverts).

The solution couldn't be more clear: get someone to take out Bush, then change the signs to say, "Impeach Cheney for Haliburton."



-Flip

Oh yeah, someone not wanting to see a huge green spinning cube with tube girl on it is an elitist snob? Maybe you should sell a few 16m plots next to your land and we'll have a contest?

Ok - more info please

I thought we sorta had the ability to do this today.... with Debug//Hide Selected.

Problem with that is, its not persistant.

With that capability partially there now, why would the renderer need to change? Couldn't they just leverage the existing debug functions - but code in some intelligence/persistance?

Just want to understand the challenge better from the technical side

As the great hover-tip controversy of 2005 showed, the meta-data about an object requires an additional query of the asset server. That means that prims don't - by default - come with their owner information. To implement "don't render things by this owner" would require so much extra asset requests that you can expect it not to be implemented in SL1.

The mythical SL2 protocol could send an owner UUID with the prim and then the "mute rendering" could work like you suggest with the Hide Selected mechanism. The renderer doesn't need to change much, the protocol does and perhaps binding the owner ID to all prims in the same way that color is already bound to the prim.

What about filtering by land parcel?

Aha... so the issue isn't so much in the rendering (or lack thereof) as it is in the asset server query.

But as a stopgap measure, could we not make 'Hide Selected' persistant across client sessions? Maybe store the UUID of things not to be rendered in an ini file on our own local drives perhaps? Or is that yet again, another lookup?

Thanks for the detail!

So would this filter work for anyone on your land or is it just for the land owner? I'm trying to visualize the SL experience for the over 90% of the population who do not own land as they wander thru through SL. Are they seeing the landscape as it is or a view which changes as determined by whoever's land they happen to be flying over?

Sounds kind of freaky unless your planning on restricting your movement to your own little safe place and utilizing P2P to go to other safe spots. Will there be any indicator that the land your about to visit is safe?

Good point, Margaret. I guess it only makes sense that if I mute something, it mutes for me, but not for you unless you mute it yourself.

Although I can see some very cool anti-grief benefits in being able to control what can be rendered for folks who visit my parcel, I highly doubt Linden would give us that much flexibility on the mainland anyway.

If we had a client API, we could write our own filters to tell our individual clients to render any thing any way we wanted to see it. Wouldn't that be nice.

The key issue here is rendering versus downloading.
If you simply don't download something, then you won't render it.
Simply add the ability to ignore objects matching some sort of criteria by mapping them to an invisible object in the caching subsystem.
This way you won't slow down the renderer.

The interesting thing is that I have never seen one of the Impeach Signs in world. I do a lot of travelling and shopping but have yet to see one. All I have seen is pics of what people have posted and they are quite an eyesore. I can definately see how these would make someone want to drop a C4 down the makers pants.

I'm understanding this to be a feature which would improve the experience for the individual land owner but anyone visiting your spot would not experience your vision unless they set up their own client with filters which coordinate with yours. Is this correct?

The time to apply the filter, that is for the client to decide what to and what not to accept would be negligible then? After the initial setup which would be time consuming activity only in the short term, of course. I'm also assuming you'd have to reboot to eliminate unwanted scenery. So this method would probably be too cumbersome to utilize outside of your own parcel, yes?

I think that's the gist of it.

Only minimally effective if it was on a per-object basis - but still better than the status quo.

Full effectiveness would be later if we were able to link it to all objects by an AV name.

And I haven't yet gotten my head around whether its a bad thing or not that I could block rendering on outside objects for anyone visiting my parcel. What if it was an all-or-nothing thing? I mean: a checkbox option on the parcel for "Render outside objects". Would that make this easier to stomach, or just as bad?

I'm probably just adding complexity here - but what if these rendering restrictions had some sort of height limit? That way you could fly around unhindered by anyone's parcel settings - but if you landed, you'd get the view the parcel owner intended.

I do - at times - wonder why they removed "Set parcel draw distance" from the parcel options way back when.

I recall showing someone who had a ugly spinning sign outside her idylic little patch of relaxation how to set it so that no visitor need see the eyesore. Oh well.

When you view a website in most browsers you have the option of seeing the view the author intended or see it according to your preferences.

Maybe we could have something similar, render per landowner's preference or per our own.

Also, keep in mind that while there are some ugly builds done for the joy of meanness, the case that is so prominent now appears to involve profit motive. If a render control ability works well enough to stop the ugly sign technique from being profitable there would presumably be much less of such activity. Thus much less "problem" caused by different people seeing different things due to different render control settings.

Oh, really? This is interesting. It'd be simpler to reimplement this rather than coding to enable the suggestion presented here.

LL can take of this without throwing any dubious technology at it. For everyone who recognizes this griefing for what it is: hit LL in the only place that will make them sit up and take notice - their cash flow. Tier down to the minimum and make sure you let LL know what you are doing and why.

I don't know how the parcel draw distance feature worked but it would have render only your parcel in order to work against signs and such located directly beyond your border.

Thus in order to not see the unwanted signage you have to give up your view entirely, which might suit some people but that would destroy the sense of being in a big world with others far more than something that worked with greater specificity.

I suspect there was some reason per parcel draw distance was removed but can't really think of why. As there is currently the "reduce draw distance if FPS goes under N" preference, the mechanism is there, your client would just get its new draw distance from another source.

The per parcel draw distance setting didn't affect the "background" so in the case of the friend with the eyesore, her waterside view and sunsets over the water were unaffected. Also as the eyesore was about 130m away, it didn't stop her view of the immediate surroundings.

This setting was also useful in windowless clubs for if you set the parcel draw distance to 0m your client wouldn't request anything outside the walls (which you couldn't see anyway). I imagine it would reduce some of the lag generated by clubs as there would be - say - a couple dozen AVs who wouldn't be asking the grid for stuff they wouldn't render anyway.

Go figure.

Masochism much? Jeez, glad *you're* not in charge.


No thanks.


It's not elitist nor snobbish to not want to be assaulted by egregious griefer-spew.


Again, no. Though, don't let me stop you, of course. Feel free to wallow. If you enjoy it so much, you might consider contacting Mr. Impeach Bush yourself; I'm sure he'd be happy to set up extra "muck" on a plot near you.

Linden Labs, please to be very much bringing to each and every user improved tools for filtering out obnoxious content from their own views, thank you very much! Give us freedom of choice!

I've seen two suggestions that I like for dealing with this, since SL won't. I think it was Hiro's idea to have everyone that hates the sign to IM the guy once a day. I mean hell, that's a lot of spam we'd be giving them, and there's nothing wrong with IMing someone!

The other is what our neighbor did, it's pretty funny. Have a screeny:

Very cute! And classy, too!

coco

LL, make it so!