Promote Gun Control

Most people don't like personal attacks, either, and they usually abuse-report them when they appear here.

I'm talking about a group of people and their behaviour, which is objectionable.

You're personalizing it. And adding something vindictive. It's immature and silly to do that. But I don't expect "education" of this sort to work in SL until a Linden gets involved.

the fact is you are as usual using very complicated sentences to argument your opinion (which of course in your little head is the only sane possibility). I think you are somehow intelligent but dangerous because you are alone but you talk as much as 10 peoples, what would scare me is that one of your ideas might one day be aproved.

Well, we could turn push on or off, so if someone wanted to play a game where push is required.. they still could. I don't think that this would be anymore of a cheating problem than other methods. If someone wants to cheat they will.



This has almost never happened to me. These devices seem to want to throw ME across the world, not what I am driving. Even if some do affect vehicles, being able to keep your avatar from being pushed would be a huge improvement over what we have now.



I'm not saying that this proposal will end all problems caused by these devices, but it is a good deal better than the piece-meal system of abuse reporting when we find them. More people security orbs and such everyday. Abuse reporting is a losing battle.

Vote for prop 389!!!

If this thing is going to be a button rather than a slider, it would be nice to make it a hotkey too. That way I don't have to fish around in the preferences if I see trouble coming my way.

I support the idea of having a button to turn on or off with the options being do you want yourself to be able to be pushed or not.

To me it seems the most simple way to solve the issue.

It absolutely amazes me that folks are so passionately against Teleport Home/Security scripts - yet are unwilling to throw their votes at proposals that would make these functions obselete.

Prop 244 is asking for better land parcel controls that are *delegateable*, among other things. The ability to delegate control to non-grouped members is a key function missing in the current tools, and one reason some folks have no other choice than to deploy scripted security measures.

Currently, this proposal has a whopping 41 votes from only 7 unique AVs. Surely there are more than just 7 folks upset about security scripts in this thread alone.

If you really want to get rid of security scripts - voting for this proposal is probably the most constructive thing you could do. If you don't like the wording of it - make up a new one.

Ok so I skipped entirely over this thread to post my own gripe! (I'm not an attention whore I am a "gripe whore!"

I was flying along yesterday and went over someone's property. I got kicked, and then somehow my avie went from male to female (I shit you not!). Relogging corrected this issue (not quite that in touch with my feminine side!) But i was wondering if it was a big, or is it possbile to do this with a script? Is it possible to do this?

Ok back to the regularly unscheduled topic.

Give it up, dawgy. No point trying to use logic or reason with these people. What you need is a pitchfork and a torch.

Of course they won't vote for, say, better land tools with definable heights on the land ban tools rather than the useless 15m-from-the-ground crap we have now. Of course they won't vote for, say, an enforced worldwide fly zone between 100m and 500m and then let us use our security scripts (or these new height restricted zones) to do as we please with above that. They don't need privacy, or a sky lab, or see any reason why anyone but the land owner needs to control access. And if they don't need it, why on earth should you need it?

Why should they think about proposals that benefit all of us? They don't care about all of us. Their pwiddy widdle avatar got bumped yesterday dammit! Ban everything!

<big wet slobber for Kris>

Pitchforks and Torches don't work well for me without opposable thumbs.

Wow, you twisted my words around quite a bit there.
Wow, you did it again!
Duh.
Yes, I'd prefer something more clear cut in the TOS as well.
<--snip-->
A shade draconian for my tastes, but given the appropriate prior warnings, yes that would be what I'm after.

In the cases I'm involved in the AR resulted in a warning only, and the resident adjusted or removed the script themselves.

I said it was BETTER, didn't I?

The POINT of this all is what I REALLY want - which is a button to prevent people from blasting you OR your vehicle to kingdom come. That way, if I'm flying above the air space, or across their property, or whatever - then the fact that they want me to leave (even though they are not even THERE) will be immaterial, because the ONLY way they can get me not to enter is by putting up the red lines.

THAT is what I want. Not to just "bitch about everything."

So I'm not changing any goalposts.

coco

P.S. Who the hell knew what was going to happen to me if I didn't scoot fast to . . . somewhere, I don't know where? Would I be blasted to kingdom come? That is fear, fear brandished as a weapon by some power-hungry individual.

If you are going to have these messages, Kris, then REWORD THE DAMN THINGS. Instead of given a vague threat - "You have ten seconds to clear the area" - like they are the damn gestapo or something, they could say, "This is a private area, please leave within ten seconds, or you will be gently escorted to the outer rim of the area." Then I'd have the option of waiting and would know that I would actually end up in the outer rim of the area (which I have no idea, of course, where that might BE).

So don't give me any of this total crap.

And would a button be confusing to you, Coco?

In SL property lines extend up as well as down as far as you can go. The reason is we fly in SL. We live in the sky. We shop in the sky. The red lines are only to protect a tiny portion of the property. When I build a house it goes up high, I prefer the small amount of privacy( less traffic up there at varying elevations) it offers. Ground protection( redlines) doesn't give any protection. A security orb is perfect, and properly set can work for everyone involved. I set mine to only affect people within 10 meters of the orb( inside my house) and to warn them sufficiently to allow a dignified exit. I get no joy in booting people, it's greifers that I targeted.

I believe people are generally good and use these in a responsible manner. Rules can be placed on these systems similar to guns. If it were up to me I can think of 3 rules for shooting... shoot only consenting avies, trespassers on your land after fair warning to leave, and people who are shooting at you.

Great forum topic

Coco - here's the problem with having a button:

Hypothetically speaking, lets say I contracted you to hold a trivia event on my property. And... you hold this event at a time I can't be present.

So, you hold the event, and everyone's having a grand old time until Joe Griefer shows up. Joe decides to verbally harass you, the contestants... playing annoying sounds - rezzing large objects on the stage. You politely ask him to stop or leave... but he ignores you and refuses.

Because you're not the landowner, you have zero access to my Land Tools to remove or ban him. Because my land is not group owned, I can't grant you access either.

So, the only way for you to stop Joe Griefer from disrupting your event, is either a) call a linden - and wait 20 minutes for them to respond.... or b) use a security script that I setup for you ahead of time.

Only problem is - all Joe Griefer has to do is press his magic button - and now that security script won't work on him. He can continue to grief and disrupt your event, and there's little you can do about it.

Really - what we need is - a way to make the need for security scripts obselete in the first place.

Right. I thought of that problem earlier - or somebody did - and I don't know what the answer to that would be. Nor do I know how you could make your vehicle push-proof along with yourself. But . . . there must be a way!

coco

I dont understand why it has to be either/or.

Why dont we encourage the Lindens to make a policy change ... that using such scripts is a bannable offense, beginning ... now.

AND

Suggest that an interface change be worked into the feature list, to work its way through design and testing ... and usability testing ... to hit the interface at some point in the future.

Is this so much about who is /right/ and who is /wrong/ that we cant make a single considered proposal to the Lindens that covers both options?

Making policy changes, and enforcing them, may not be as simple and inexpensive as they appear, but they are certainly cheaper and faster than coding changes. Even the simplest button on the UI would have reprecussions that would need testing.

Be a bit of a bother if that /simple/ button had some unfortunate side effect because code is complicated and few of us understand all of the ways in which bits interact with each other. Something as /simple/ as this really needs pretty thorough testing. (I can hear some of the programmers in our midst going "but it shouldn't" ... and I say in response that it's always in those situations that the "Gotcha" has the biggest and nastiest teeth!!)

Why should we wait for that design, testing, implementation cycle to run its course?

Why cant we just urge the Lindens to do /both/ things? One soon and the other later?

Having repeated the question a couple of times for emphasis, Im stopping now.

Jim, when you quoted me you left out this part of my statement:



I hope this explains my position better than your snip from my post. I want the Lindens to get tougher on harassment in general so unwanted behavior is discouraged (this includes push scripts). I want push scripts to continue to operate so that I can enjoy their legitimate uses. And I want a client option to exempt me from being pushed (..... filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered?!?).

Jim - understood, and I fully support the idea of doing *both*.

However, if you eliminate security scripts *now*, and develop tools *later*.... what shall I do about griefers in the interim?

How could I possibly contract others to hold events, and provide them some degree of protection against their event being disrupted when I'm unable to be there?

The least disruptive way of handling this for *everyone* - is to implement these two changes you suggest simultaneously.

Many current things being against the TOS have not prevented them from occuring repeatedly. If you look at the majority of the posts in this thread (Prokofy being a notable exception since he thinks a button is beyond the comprehension of MBA level users), they call for something to be done IN ADDITION to making the bouncing of avatars with security scripts a TOS violation.

Both things need to happen - if one of them needs to happen sooner, it is the implementation of anti-griefing tools, not yet another A/R that often results in simply a slap on the wrist, even for aggregious violations of the current TOS. How will this TOS violation somehow be magically different? The other ones have been SOOO effective.

There's little you can do about it in either scenario, now, or after a possible slider or button.

We are not allowed to push or shoot griefers, if you do, you will probably face discipline as well.

This has been discussed multiple times and confimed by LL.

Retaliation is abuse in itself. Not that I personally agree 100%, but those are the rules.

I suppose the best thing to do is to have the person whose land the event is on add you to their group, so you can use the eject and freeze functions, and/or call a Linden.

It seems to me that the target should be the behavior and not the mechanism. I think the circumstances also factor in. Its different kicking someone who is haraasing you in your house, than having a scritp which boots people for flying overhead.

Just because something can be abused does not make it bad (they still may spray paint for god sakes). I mean pixel bumping can be fun and consensual, we should not curtail legitimate uses based on possible abuse. Abusers should be punished.

Agreed oe of my first vehicle experiences was being bounced at 1k meters up. Lost my hover bike (later found 5 sims away from bounce area) and I was boucned home. Dam bike had a locator script that messaged me for days until I could find it up in the air about 500M up. I wasn't being rude or mean. I was just flying around cause I got this cool vehicle.

Now is there a use for such scripts...yes...does it need fine tuning....yes. Maybe give someone 20 seconds. Anyone that doesn't leave a property in 20 seconds is not just passing by.

Also restricting land only works so high....I know I've danced on all the restircted land of my neighbors...or at least thier roofs. Actually played on the LL ban for an hour like a trampoline.

You just touched on the part of this I am having a hard time wrapping my brain around.

We are allowed to have a full time script in place that pushes anyone who crosses it's range settings, a "passive" push, if you will. This affects many people, 99% of whom are not griefers. And it is still pushing, and usually the target has done nothing wrong, yet it's ok to push them. It shoots them across sims, or sends them home.

However, if someone decides to come onto your property and start shooting or pushing you, you are then NOT allowed to push them back, in an "active" manner, which doesn't affect innocent passers by.

For me that's like saying I can set up a water ballon catapult in my RL front yard that can randomly shoot at the postman, neighbor's dog, or anyone else who comes onto my property, as long as it's run by a program. But, if a neighbor decides to come over and start throwing water balloons at me, I cannot pick up one of my own and throw it back at him, or the cops are gonna show up. The thing is, the cops didn't care when I was randomly shooting them at passers by.

I suspect that we will have a hard time with this issue because of dichotomies like this. Therefore, I am for the ability to turn off push affecting my avatar, not wholly unlike the "PvP enable" function we see in many MMOGs.

I am 100% against nerfing or removing push scripts. I want to be able to have a mock battle with my friends, if I so choose. It can be great fun from time to time. Not to mention many other non-agressive items and their sellers depend on push, as well as the sellers of weaponry.

In the end, I wish LL would come out with a crystal clear set of rules on all push/TP home action.

The rules are SO vague on this, I believe the last time LL said something on this, it was along the lines of "if it's overly aggressive security system, AR it."

What is "overly aggressive"?

What is with suggesting a timer warning?

These muddy responses from LL only serve to cloud and further the debate on this issue.

LL, please define this very important aspect of LL.

Untrue, Nolan. Today, I can allow the event host to use the script to teleport the Griefer home.

Linden has never stated that the use of Teleport home is unacceptable or against the TOS in *ALL* cases. One does need to be careful that the script is not setup to disconnect the user, and a warning - be it verbal, or from the script is desireable. The script cannot operate on AVs that are not on my land - nor can it disrupt flightpaths.

My script only operates if you are *inside* the walls of my building, and only if you have been manually added to the list as a 'griefer'.

I have a TOS acceptable way of dealing with Griefers today, and have been doing so for the past 9 months. You can debate the validity of me utilizing this script - but I assure you, after several conversations with Lindens, I am using it in the most acceptable manner possible.

Changing this rule now, without providing an alternative toolset - will leave me completely unprotected - and that is unacceptable.

My fault for mentioning TP home. We are speaking about push, and it's not allowed to retaliate with. I will go find you specific examples of LL employees stating this in a bit.