1.8.0(3) - P2P changes! Huge privacy and landowner rights victory for SL!

I can answer you post regarding offering teleports, if the land is set to blocked and you offer, they are sent to the next available parcel, offer teleport overides landing point and works as anywhere in other cases.

If you default people to telehubs, it will keep the value of telehub land up falsely because the vast majority of land will allow teleports. It will also do nothing but frustrate players that are now used to rezzing in close to their destination, that now they have to fly through telehub trap stores.

It seems like the only group that would want this solution (keep telehubs and let players teleport there as a backup) is people that own telehub land and don't want their land value to plummet as much.

Do you have the coordinates of any land on the preview grid that is blocked to teleport? I'd like to see how this works.

Yes i can send you a landmark inworld if you want, you'll be teleported to the sim and placed on the parcel nearest the blocked parcel that is open to teleport. teleports will rarely fail as linden land is set to no landing point and open to p2p and most if not all sims have protected land

Is the map going to show what places you can or can't teleport to?

Logic rarely gets engaged at the same time as emotion. I don't think human brains function that way

That quote is by far my favorite and I use it at work all the time as well. Considering I run an IT department for a living in RL, and we support a number of user who really fit that quote...

If this is the case, then I still have work to do.

Sending over someone to a neighboring piece of land is *not* a solution. If someone doesn't want you to tp to their land, a neighbor shouldn't be having unexpected visitors.

And why would offer teleport override what the landowner wants? That would be just silly!

This has got to change.

Think of it the opposite way around too, if a neighbour has banned you and you clicked their land would you want to arrive on your land or close to it?

and offer teleport doesnt overide what the landowner wants, if its set to block it doesnt place the av on the land the offered person will arrive on the next available parcel, if the parcel is set to landing point or anywhere then they will arrive next to you as before, the reason they dont goto landing point is that in a sim with 1 parcel a landing point could be 200+ m away

Yes, exactly.

Spread the word! This ain't over! Blocking teleport does NOT block teleport.

It's a start. The next fix is that this should be the default, and it should pick the nearest LP if TP is blocked, like it picks the nearest telehub now. That would fix your second problem:

Split a 16m parcel off your land, put a LP there. Offer teleport will be blocked, so they'll go to the nearest LP instead, which is the one you set up on the little parcel you split off...

I know I don't like "Offer Teleport" being nerfed, because it's already nerfed just because the guy offering the TP is already somewhere it's OK to be... but if it kills two birds with one stone...

Spread the word! Some people won't be happy untill Linden decides to leave telehubs in the game.

Seriously, teleporting to the next parcel over that has teleport is a valid choice. The person who owns that land said it's ok for people to teleport to there. Are you trying to say that a landowner shouldn't have the right to ok people to teleport onto his land? and that this is a huge loss for landowner rights in SL?

It does go to the nearest LP if TP is blocked. Nathan just let me try it

That does not make sense.

As a neighbor, my assumption is that if I allow TPs, I am allowing people who want to tp to my land to come. I am not about to simply take my neighbor's bounced teleports. No!

http://secondtense.blogspot.com/2005/12/p2p-telehubs-part-iii-blocking-tp-is.html

All of mine. All land with a store in it. All Governor Linden land (which is roads anyway). And I'm not anti-P2P, I argued for P2P, but I argued for a P2P that could be spread gradually through SL, as people enabled teleport or added landing points. This still goes too far, AND if it doesn't drop you on the nearest available landing point when you try and teleport to a parcel with no LP it's just going to be annoying...

Two more little changes...

If you don't like taking your neighbor's bounced TP's you can just block them. Or cut off a small parcel of your land that boarders your neighbors land and set a landing point in there.

If I lived next to a very popular area with blocked teleport I would love to recieve their TP's, especially if i'm a vendor. It should be my right as a landowner to allow their bounced tp's to end up on my land. If they do go to telehubs it will be a huge landowner rights defeat for sl!

Also this way if someone has a night club next to a mall, and they own both properties, if they deny teleport to the club, they can force people to land in their mall, which will make people walk through the mall area to get to the club. That's a huge control victory for landowner rights! If they take away the action and force people to telehubs as you are suggesting they will be stripping landowners of these amazing rights before they even get them.

EDIT: Also by default parcels should be able to be teleported to. If it defaults to no then it gives the impression that SL is a grouping of private areas with a few public areas. When the impression that the game wants to give is that it's alot of public areas with a few private areas.

Why should I have to sacrifice my land just to protect rights I should already have?


IF you are a vendor. Again, we're looking at a solution for all cases, not for *some* cases.


In that case, the night club would just set a landing spot at the border where the mall is. Having the tp -> nearest landing point doesn't add any value.

That basically cant happen as linden protected land (roads/waterways) dont seem to have landing points, and the calculation of closest land isnt done on landing point apparently, im guessing its the closest land with biggest border, but it works for me.

As i said earlier you have to work out how both sides will work not just your own, if you have been banned from your next door neighbours land and want to tp in where would you want to end up? or if you had a shop next to a parcel that was banned where would you want your customers?

Hiro my only problem with what you are suggesting is the fact that it leaves telehubs in the game in an extremely neutered fashion by suggesting that telehubs are the only solution that gives landowners rights.

Would you be happy if people would not teleport to the neighbor's land, but instead the closest point on public land owned by governor linden(not a set landing point, just the closest point)? For example the streets that go through most sims. This way nobody is getting their neighbor's tp's dumped onto their land. I would love to see why you think that having people get teleported to the nearest linden owned land doesn't seem to be an option in your mind. Instead you insist on having people teleported 3 sims away to a now defunct telehub. I just can't understand why your insisting on making that jump.

There are actually a lot of people arguing against hubs that aren't hub land owners. I've been arguing against them (and for P2P) a lot, but one of the reasons why I like the "default-to-telehub-if-P2P-is-turned-off" option is that it is a more gradual implementation of P2P.

One step at a time... phase in P2P with a default-to-telehub, take a step back and examine the results, how people use it, how the landscape of the land reacts, how land owners like or dislike it, etc.

then at that point you can decide to push further with P2P or take a different course.


I haven't made up my mind on the issue of blocking P2P for your land means that should block personal TPs as well. I can envision a lot of different scenarios where sometimes it is good, sometimes bad. I suppose that giving two options to landowners is out of the question -- one for global TP on-off, one for personal TPs? still up in the air on this issue...

I think leaving telehubs in the game after the implementation of p2p just causes more problems then it solves. I'm assuming that due to the open nature of sl that most people will be leaving their land open to teleport. Or if they are expecting visitors they will open their land to teleport while expecting guests. In hiro's suggested plan of people getting kicked to the telehubs it simply won't be happening often enough to justify people paying premium prices for telehub land. Uninformed people will still be buying telehub land at high prices, allowing the people that currently hold telehub land to get rid of it without too much of a loss, but leaving the uninformed people that don't know about the changes to the teleport system with land that they payed far too much for.

The only way to keep any sort of value to telehub land is to do what the lindens are intending to do. Make former telehub land community centers, where people are encouraged to gather and hang out. Implementing a system where mabey one out of 10 times you teleport randomly you get sent to a telehub is not good for telehub land at all.

If the former telehub land is used in the way ll is currently planning, i'll gladly buy your former telehub land. It gets boring sitting out in Mooleao with nobody dropping in to say hi

I disagree. By default parcels should not be able to be teleported to because change should be gradual. Don't forget, the original argument for P2P was not that you should be able to teleport directly to where you wanted to go, but that you shouldn't be restricted to a couple of dozen inconveniently distantly placed Telehubs. I'm in full agreement with that, but not this...

Consider that if the default is "teleports are open", having a teleport redirected sends the message "this is private". Even if the message was intended to be "I think you should start exploring my build *here*".

If the default is "teleports go to the nearest LP", having a teleport redirected doesn't mean anything. It doesn't send a message at all.

If it kicks you back to a telehub you just fly over to the build right to where your red arrow is pointing and it doesn't exactly tell you to start exploring a build "here". If you kick people to the nearest landing point, it tells them this is where I want you to be.

Take your example, of a build with a set starting point. The easiest thing to do would be set the majority of the build to no teleport land, and cut off a small block and set a landing point in it. That way whenever someone does teleport to your build, they teleport right to the start. No need to send a message. They are already there. Or you could just make the whole build one one plot and then set the landing point to where you want them to start exploring the build, after all that is the entire purpose of allowing us to set landing points.

OK, fair enough. I was thinking of an area that's open to teleports as being all landing points, but I guess I'm "thinking different". What I meant was that you'd be redirected to the nearest available point for teleporting. Which may be the landing point in the next parcel, or it may be the closest point in the next parcel.

If I've been banned from someone's land I'd assume it'd treat that land as "teleport blocked" for me.

I have no idea what you mean by this. If you had a shop next to a property that was teleport blocked, that'd be like having mini-telehub land, wouldn't it? Why would that be a problem?

I don't want to be driving / sailing / flying along and smack into someone rezzing out of nowhere.

If it kicks you back to a telehub that's just wrong. It MUST kick you to the nearest available place to where you were going to teleport anyway. Otherwise people are just going to be going "teleport... no.. next parcel... teleport... no... teleport... ok" and getting the same result by search. I know I would. That doesn't give you any more privacy and just pisses people off.

Well, yes, I'm assuming that point would be your landing point for that plot. The point is, setting a landing point for your plot or setting your whole plot to no teleport shouldn't really be distinguishable to the user. If they are, then that's a design flaw and a big problem.

I was only talking about whether the default should be block or no-block, and what that means for privacy. And I think the default should be block so that you won't be teleporting onto people's land until they're ready to receive you. Instead you'll end up on a nearby street, or at some enterprising person's mall... but you'll still be closer than you would be in the current system.

What this means is that if someone sets an LP or doesn't know about removing the block, you don't automatically associate a block with privacy, you associate it with either carelessness or an intent to focus attention. If blocks are rare to start with, people will start seeing them as privacy signs, and THEN the division into "private' and "public" you're concerned about will start.