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

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

Having the tp -> nearest landing point doesn't add any value.

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.

You know, I hadn't even thought of that. What a thought! Instead of people just rezzing in at their home or last location one time during the game session, they will be materializing out of nowhere all the time everywhere!

I meant if you owned a shop next to a blocked teleport piece of land, and someone was trying to get to your store, perhaps by clicking on the map or if you had changed the land slightly and the old landmark was out of date, would you want their teleport blocked totally, sent to an old hub or as intended they knew where abouts they wanted to go so send them close to there selected point with a beacon pointing

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.

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, that's a good point. I hadn't thought of that, but that's probably exactly what people will do.

If it kicks you back to a telehub that's just wrong.

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

well, that's a good point. I hadn't thought of that, but that's probably exactly what people will do.

Here's the concept:

Joe Avatar does not want people porting to his land.
Joe Avatar sets his land to no-port.
Joe Avarar does not WANT the person being plopped next door.

As for the street - I doubt it's a minute possibility. It's just a matter of traffic. What happens as LL fixes some of the border handoff issues? More people will drive for fun, eh? What if there's a parade, or a race, or whatever? And on average, it takes a quarter minute for a person to rez in, so they are now blocking the path, unable to move for a noticeable amount of time.

The question is really "Should people who pay for server space be allowed to control how people access it?"

Well Joe Avatar is stuffed, because when Fred Teleporter gets bounced to a telehub, he's going to try clicking on nearby parcels, and so he ends up "plopped next door" anyway. Except now he's in your neighbor's bedroom instead of on the edge of your neighbor's property, so you get to piss off your neighbor as well as Fred Teleporter.

Um, they're materialising on the edge of the street, where every Linden street has a footpath. They're more likely to end up in the middle of the street if you bounce them back to the telehub and they retry on the street instead.

The question is "Should LL implement restrictions that make the problem the landowners are worried about worse".

My only problem with setting default to private is that all the land in the game right now will start off as private/no teleport. That means people that don't read the patch notes, or don't log on. Will have their land set to no teleport pretty much permenatly.

Here's the concept:

Joe Avatar does not want people porting to his land.
Joe Avatar sets his land to no-port.
Joe Avarar does not WANT the person being plopped next door.
Joe Avatar wants it clear and obvious that teleporting to the land is not allowed.

If Joe Avatar wanted someone porting there, they'd have a landing spot.

Joe Avarar does not WANT the person being plopped next door.

All that means is you may have to walk or fly 30 or 40 meters from the nearest Linden land to get to their place,

People will just have to deal that it's not proper etiquette to keep clicking away.

No, I've seen streets without footpaths.

And why is this a problem? Seriously. All that means is you may have to walk or fly 30 or 40 meters from the nearest Linden land to get to their place, instead of just plopping there. Worst case, if the Lindens don't turn it on for the Linden land, you will have to teleport from the same telehub (if they don't turn it on at ex-telehubs right away, they'll do it within 15 minutes of people's complaints) until someone with a shop or something opens it up closer than that. That doesn't seem like a big problem to me.

What's "proper etiquette" is going to develop from what people actually do. And if that's "clicking away" that's what you're going to deal with.

Either way it's not really a huge issue. I just like the default behavior of something to be the most common setting. It's a UI design thing that my Human Computer Interaction professor killed one of my projects on before

And here is exactly your false assumption.

People will not want people coming to their place. Not porting near it, nothing. They have that right because they pay for the server space for the land.

Yes, altering P2P is only 1 piece of the whole privacy picture, but this is an important piece.

And why would people click away?

I would click, see that I am not desired there, and go somewhere else.

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.

I like the default to be the least surprising setting. And that's "no change". Your HCI professor would agree... he'd call it "the principle of least astonishment".