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

So hero your saying this an acceptable decision then. Have people teleport in hovering 10meters above the street closest to where the land they were trying to teleport to but were blocked.

Can you give me any reasons other then keeping telehub land value from decreasing to not use the system of teleporting to the closest publically owned land? Also remember it's public land, which means you have no control over who goes there. Saying "because if I block someone I don't want them porting to the street 2 meters from my house" is not a valid point, because you do not own that street.

And this is precisely why it wouldn't be an issue to have the ban.

Because people go to stores and events - places where putting up ban on teleports would be a bit silly.

The places that will ban will be places under construction, private homes, games with level progression, etc. And at the very least, Offer teleport should not override a landing point.

I'm not arguing at all that the ban is a bad thing. The ban is a good thing. The idea of forcing people to teleport to the closest telehub, that you are suggesting is the only valid solution, is what I am arguing against.

No, just the opposite.


If I don't want someone to port to me, then I don't want to give them the impression that they're welcome. Letting them port right next to me gives them that impression.

The person porting is requesting to go directly to the land of a person. If that land owner wants to deny it, then what does any other land have to do with it?

"Can I port to your land?"
"No."

If you want to give them the impression that they are not welcome. The solution for that is already in the game. Set up your parcel to deny access to everyone. It's those parcels with the little red letters floating around them. When people try to go into them it bumps them back and says access denied. When they teleport to your no teleport land and see that your house is surrounded by the big red fence. I believe it gets the message accross quite clearly.

EDIT: Also the concession i'm making is that mabey teleporting to the next avaliable LP is a bad idea. Mabey they should teleport to the closest public land. In that case there is no other land owner being brought into the situation.

I suggest that as a default because:
(a) it's already in place, the architecture is there.
(b) if someone is just looking to get somewhere in the region, then it makes sense to put them in a central place where information and public meetings can be held - which is what LL is suggesting that they convert telehubs into

I have people coming to my land all the time, they fly i just have a place for building and testing, simple place for friends to gather, but also getting people drop in because they get dropped they by the hank ramos teleporter as i own the 128,128 land, i could ban or allow just my friends if i wanted but well i like meeting people, i also happen to be on the edge of a waterway so see people boating which is also nice.

So who knows i may get less people dropping in with people being able to go directly to their place, but still meet the people boating and having some fun exploring, and if you really need more land control than just bumping them next door perhaps look at the parcel access control, because people cant get bumped back to telehubs because they no longer exist.

Both a and b are assuming that p2p does not get implemented at all. It is coming. Your b suggestion that placing people at a central area for the region is just silly, because they are going to be teleporting exactly to where they want to go.

Right. That's what I'm trying to do by "clicking around". To go somewhere else. Few people are going to think of "three sims away at a telehub" as being the logical "somewhere else". What makes you think they were trying to get to your land in the first place? Unless you're actually handing out landmarks they're almost certainly going "what's in this sim" and clicking on the map to get there. You just happened to be at "X", and they're going to be just as happy with "X + <20,20,0>".

Now you simply misunderstand me.
(a) is a default in place - as in, you don't have to come up with a new algorithm that will eat up CPU clock cycles to figure out where a person should be landing if a place is blocked.

(b) People who port directly to where they want to go will port to places where it is allowed. But there are also people who just wander - for them it's a matter of getting to a region, and having a centralized telehub as this fall-back makes sense.

You're missing the fact that the exact landmarks will be available from:

scripts
landmarks
HTML once integrated to SL
profile picks
classified ads
Offer to teleport
"Find" places

So there's none of this guess-work needed.

And their neighbors have the right to say "Yes, people can come near your place, because that's my place, I pay for the space, and I'm allowing teleports". If you don't want your neighbors letting people do stuff you don't like near your land, you have to convince them to, or go rent on an island where the estate owner makes "no teleport" a rule. That's the way SL works, it's always worked that way, and the Lindens have shown no indication that it's ever going to change.

That's why I'm renting on an island. Because it's a better deal than you get directly from Linden Labs. Maybe you should consider it too.

But if you're my neighbor on an island, I'm going to be allowing teleport.

What landmarks? I'm always bopping over to random spots on the map just to see what's there. Where I'm going, "there ARE no roads".

In the first version of the preview offer teleport did take the person to the landing point, this has since been removed as it was a bug and rather annoying, imagine owing a large mall type parcel, you usually keep the parcel as a single piece to keep high traffic, you set the landing point by the entrance, your friend goes shopping in the mall and find something and wants to show you, they offer you a teleport, instead of arriving next to your friend in the mall you arrive at the landing point and have to wait for it all to rez as you navigate your way through it to find your friend

I'm one of them, and I'm telling you that a telehub makes no sense at all to me. And if it makes no sense to me when I'm one of the least likely people to deliberately try and crash into your land against your will, you're fighting an uphill battle.

Basically, the only people who will put up with being kicked three sims away from where they were going to go are either going to have hit your neighbor's land just as often as yours, or they're not going to be hitting your land in the first place because they're not wanderers.

I'm not sure what the people you're worried about are. People who aren't just jaunting around and who are going to bop over to your land rather then your neighbor's land when P2P drops them on your neighbor's LP.

Griefers, maybe?

It makes perfect sense. I don't like the idea of forcing other people to walk across the bloody continent in order to get somewhere, so I'm perfectly fine with bounced teleports ending up on my land.

As is my right as a landowner, hmm?

You aren't going to get absolute control over teleporting. It will not happen. It cannot happen, not in the same world where people have the right to control their own destinations.

Compromise, people. It doesn't mean "Let's you and me do what I want".

Again, this ignores the fact that people generally won't be teleporting to places that are banned.

The case where people are banned will not be someone going to a shop or club, it will be someone poking around the map trying to get to a location where ... they are not wanted.

It ignores that fact because that fact has no impact on my stance.

I explicitly don't think landowners have ANY right whatsoever to interfere with teleport to points outside of their property line (even allowing that you have absolute right to do so on your property, which I don't necessarily agree with either).

Even when your property was the actual/original destination.

Even when it's to prevent people appearing next door because you blocked their teleport to your land.

Even for a game.

Even on a train.

Even if you own half the sim.

Even if their name is Tim.

Not if their name is Tim, not if you own a half-sim. Not on a train, not for a game. I do not like overzealous teleport bans. I do not like them, Hiro-I-am.

*cough* Ahem. At any rate...

If you don't want people on your land, ban them. If the ban list is not sufficient, ask for improvements to it. If the ban list is sufficient, you have no need for anything else.

The interaction with the land happened when the person tried to tp to that land, in essence - the teleporting person gave that landowner that right to choose to deny it.

Your viewing it from that way. We are viewing it that the person gives his neighbor the right to choose to accept his misplaced teleports. They are both equally valid.

If the person is not standing on your parcel at the end of the teleport, then your teleport-blocking rights, such as they are, have been entirely satisfied as far as I'm concerned.

If your that anti social. Turn off the computer and go hide in a closet.
I bet your the same grumpy old man who yells at the kids about staying off his lawn.
You keep yelling privacy. What privacy and what would people see that is so shocking?
This is a cartoon world get over it.

One other question. You don't want someone tping next to your land. What if that is landing point I set for my land. Do you have some special god given right to say what goes on with my land?


Keep shaking your fist and cursing at the sky. Change is going to happen any way

Rox

All of these soloutions just defeat the purpose of Pinpoint teleporting. Why not axe these and go with the origional proposal that brings Pinpoint Teleporting to everyone and everywhere

This sounds like what I would expect those who own land around telehubs to propose. I say all of this is just designed to derail Pinpoint Teleporting.

The Lindens are making a major mistake listening to this minority of people. The Majority want unlimited Pinpoint Teleporting.

I have a proposal that states that teleport home scripts should be banned and another that says warning signs need to be posted in order to use forcefields.