Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
Is removing the limit on llGiveInventory a good idea? |
|
|
blaze Spinnaker
1/2 Serious
Join date: 12 Aug 2004
Posts: 5,898
|
10-31-2005 16:34
Poll
|
|
Dnate Mars
Lost
Join date: 27 Jan 2004
Posts: 1,309
|
10-31-2005 17:21
If you abuse it, you get banned. Even if it is an accident, you bring down the grid, you are out of SL. Don't hurt all the useful uses of llGiveInventory
_____________________
|
|
Nolan Nash
Frischer Frosch
Join date: 15 May 2003
Posts: 7,141
|
10-31-2005 20:04
Well, it's not an auto perma-ban.
From reading the release notes, you will notice we are re-enabling the recently placed limit on llGiveInventory. This is however followed by a clarification to the Community Standards as follows: Global Attacks Objects, scripts, or actions which broadly interfere with or disrupt the Second Life community, the Second Life servers or other systems related to Second Life will not be tolerated in any form. We will hold you responsible for any actions you take, or that are taken by objects or scripts that belong to you. Sandboxes are available for testing objects and scripts that have components that may be unmanageable or whose behavior you may not be able to predict. If you chose to use a script that substantially disrupt the operation of Second Life, disciplinary actions will result in a minimum two-week suspension, the possible loss of in-world inventory, and a review of your account for probable expulsion from Second Life. I am for lifting the limit. _____________________
“Time's fun when you're having flies.” ~Kermit
|
|
Travis Lambert
White dog, red collar
Join date: 3 Jun 2004
Posts: 2,819
|
10-31-2005 20:13
I think lifting the limit, and updating the TOS is a good short-term solution.
Long-term, obviously - is to implement a system that prevents a global grid-attack from happening, but doesn't cripple innocent usage. Hopefully the priorities will be there to continue focus on getting it there soon. _____________________
------------------
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. |
|
Jesrad Seraph
Nonsense
Join date: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 1,463
|
11-01-2005 01:44
It took three years for one (1) person to use this flaw and crash the grid. Lift the limit, I say.
_____________________
Either Man can enjoy universal freedom, or Man cannot. If it is possible then everyone can act freely if they don't stop anyone else from doing same. If it is not possible, then conflict will arise anyway so punch those that try to stop you. In conclusion the only strategy that wins in all cases is that of doing what you want against all adversity, as long as you respect that right in others.
|
|
blaze Spinnaker
1/2 Serious
Join date: 12 Aug 2004
Posts: 5,898
|
12-13-2005 03:37
oh ok.
_____________________
Taken from The last paragraph on pg. 16 of Cory Ondrejka's paper "Changing Realities: User Creation, Communication, and Innovation in Digital Worlds :
"User-created content takes the idea of leveraging player opinions a step further by allowing them to effectively prototype new ideas and features. Developers can then measure which new concepts most improve the products and incorporate them into the game in future patches." |
|
Issarlk Chatnoir
Cross L. apologist.
Join date: 3 Oct 2004
Posts: 424
|
12-13-2005 03:47
The attack was better handled this time, from what I read here. So there's probably tools at work behind the scene which warns the Lindens of problems like this.
I say let llGiveInventory work and improve the detection tools (which is probably being done) ; and not have the thing delete everything in some SIMS of course  After a few guys get legal trouble attacks should be rare anyway. _____________________
Vincit omnia Chaos
Anyway, ignore me, just listen to the cow |
|
Eata Kitty
Registered User
Join date: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 387
|
12-13-2005 04:44
The system should be sensible enough to automatically limit things as seems fit.
Hard limits are an antiquated idea for a lot of situations. |
|
Cid Jacobs
Theoretical Meteorologist
Join date: 18 Jul 2004
Posts: 4,304
|
12-13-2005 05:55
oh ok. No matter how much you may want a limit, it's not a good idea for SL overall, sorry. _____________________
|
|
FlipperPA Peregrine
Magically Delicious!
Join date: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 3,703
|
12-13-2005 06:13
I voted for the limit. There is currently a 2-second delay after llGiveInventory or llGiveInventory list, IIRC.
However, that's a per-script limit; what I'd prefer is a 1-second delay PER OBJECT instead of a 2-second delay PER SCRIPT. Also, I'd prefer that an object must be rez'd in world for 30 seconds before llGiveInventory() or llGiveInventoryList() can work. I don't think those limitations are ridiculous until we can have a better detection system. Any comments on this idea? Regards, -Flip _____________________
Peregrine Salon: www.PeregrineSalon.com - my consulting company
Second Blogger: www.SecondBlogger.com - free, fully integrated Second Life blogging for all avatars! |
|
Eggy Lippmann
Wiktator
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 7,939
|
12-13-2005 06:16
oh ok. If you want to have less griefing, why do you make and sell griefing tools like those nukes you love bragging about? _____________________
|
|
Beau Perkins
Second Life Resident.
Join date: 25 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,061
|
12-13-2005 06:18
Can you give me a use for llGiveInventory without the limit? I have not been inconvienced yet with it so I am not sure why it should be lifted.
I am really just asking here, give me some examples please. _____________________
|
|
Hank Ramos
Lifetime Scripter
Join date: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 2,328
|
12-13-2005 06:18
Disabling features only hurts the good people of SL. Griefers will always find something else to use until we have to remove all features from SL and make it totally unusable.
|
|
Forseti Svarog
ESC
Join date: 2 Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730
|
12-13-2005 06:19
I'll let ya'll technical folks argue over the details of a solution, but there need to be controls.
RL prosecution isn't going to stop much in this era of false credit cards and free basic accounts. Find a middle ground, where the worst of the attacks are prevented and the majority of proper-use scripts aren't excessively broken. I think you'll find that most SLers are happy to have a few script techniques bust if it prevents grid crashes. hank -- we don't need EVERY feature _____________________
|
|
Jessica Qin
Wo & Shade, Importers
Join date: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 161
|
12-13-2005 06:30
I voted for the limit. There is currently a 2-second delay after llGiveInventory or llGiveInventory list, IIRC. However, that's a per-script limit; what I'd prefer is a 1-second delay PER OBJECT instead of a 2-second delay PER SCRIPT. Also, I'd prefer that an object must be rez'd in world for 30 seconds before llGiveInventory() or llGiveInventoryList() can work. I don't think those limitations are ridiculous until we can have a better detection system. Any comments on this idea? Sound like good ideas to me -- although I don't know how difficult it is on the LL side to implement per-object limits vs per-script limits. The grid is down now so I can't experiment and check -- when someone is offered an item via llGiveInventory(), is it obvious that the source is a scripted object? Jess |
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
12-13-2005 06:33
I firmly believe you could take the grid down just as effectively without self-rep. While self-rep was banned I wrote a simulated self-rep script. It had limits built in, but it's not that hard to figure out how t get around it.
|
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
12-13-2005 06:35
Can you give me a use for llGiveInventory without the limit? I have not been inconvienced yet with it so I am not sure why it should be lifted. |
|
FlipperPA Peregrine
Magically Delicious!
Join date: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 3,703
|
12-13-2005 06:35
Sound like good ideas to me -- although I don't know how difficult it is on the LL side to implement per-object limits vs per-script limits. The grid is down now so I can't experiment and check -- when someone is offered an item via llGiveInventory(), is it obvious that the source is a scripted object? Jess Its fairly obvious, as it pops one of the light-blue dialogs, saying something to the effect of, "An object called X is offering you Y. [Accept] [Decline]". Regards, -Flip _____________________
Peregrine Salon: www.PeregrineSalon.com - my consulting company
Second Blogger: www.SecondBlogger.com - free, fully integrated Second Life blogging for all avatars! |
|
Ben Bacon
Registered User
Join date: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 809
|
12-13-2005 07:19
when someone is offered an item via llGiveInventory(), is it obvious that the source is a scripted object? What is being discussed here is the ability for an object to llGiveInventory to another object (also known as object-to-object inventory, or O2O). This is a requirement for this sort of grief attack, but it is also a requirement for many networked vendors and just about every a-life system in SL. I'm sure there are other innocent applications of O2O of which I am unaware. After the last grid attach, LL did indeed remove O2O, but many, many devlopers begged to have it reinstated, as it was breaking their projects - some of which were commercial. According to this poll (and the gut feeling I have picked up from following this on the forums) there is a slight (but definite) majority in favour of keeping O2O and punishing abusers, rathet than punishing all the innocent users by removing the facility. |
|
Annah Zamboni
Banannah Annah
Join date: 2 Jun 2004
Posts: 1,022
|
12-13-2005 07:26
Maybe put a limit on polls?
|
