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

No, my whole argument is based on landowners should have the ability to deny tp.

Respond to this then

Instead of teleporting to the next closest landing point they teleport to 20m above the ground with fly set automatically to on(which is already in 1.8 the auto fly) above the closest linden owned land.

Is that an acceptable alternative?

Having problems 'getting' this - I was under the impression that landowners can deny p2p teleporting if they so desire, and that a person would be shuttled to the nearest place they COULD teleport.

So - the problem is that someone denied to your location would be teleported close by?

If so - are the current land tools sufficient to keep an unwanted person out?

Or

Should trying to teleport to a parcel with teleport disabled tell you that you cannot teleport there instead of 'shuttling?'

Keep in mind that someone bent on teleporting near your land could select a parcel and try again - and there wouldn't be much anyone could do about that.

Siggy.

What if people don't want to fly?

I have come up with an alternate suggestion, though.

Let's examine the reason why the person is porting. Two cases exist:
A. The person wants to get to exactly the plot of land on the map they clicked.
B. The person wants to get to that area, but not necessarily that plot of land - they just clicked in an area.

If (a) is the case, and the landowner does not want the person there, then they should not have the ability to go directly there, whether offered teleport or not. Porting someone close doesn't really solve anything because the teleporter isn't let known that they ... well, aren't wanted to pop in there.

If (b) is the case, whether the person is right to the plot or not really is irrelevant, because that's not their goal.

How about as another alternative, when someone tries to port to land that is blocked, offer teleport or not, they are given a dialog box. "Teleport Blocked to this parcel. Do you want to land at the nearest public land?"

I suppose this still falls short of what I intend, but it's better, at least. People porting in at least will be warned that the port is blocked, so they could respect the landowner's wishes if they should choose. Also, I suppose that helps with another issue - people being redirected and not know what's going on - they'd at least have an explanation why.

...

In general, though, I think the issue is more critical than people first surmise. To this question, I don't have an answer, though I'll pose it:

Are we building a world that is default fantastic, and people have to opt-out to make things realistic? Or, are we building a world that is default realistic, that people have to enable it to be fantastical?

...?

Your question is completely off topic, and how dare you attack my lifestyle.

Land Owners do not have the right to control others land. If someone is not allowed to port to your land, you do not have the right to control your neighbors land just so they will not teleport close to you. Not at all.

I'm lost.

Where did Flip comment on your lifestyle? Unless you take "hypocrite" to mean some personal life choice? I don't get it.

Once again, you lack any sort of direct response to my post. You reiterate what you've already said and ignore my comments.

Magnum, please ... if you want to have a discussion and argue your points, I'm happy to oblige, but please do me the courtesty of rebuttal, not reiteration.

None of my questions are invalid. The only soloution that seems to work for you is to not abandon the telehubs.

You should know if I have land next to yours, and you forbid people from landing on your land, I will not forbid them from landing on mine simply because you demand I do.

next question?

As for the fact that 870 people voted for my proposal... 61 million americans were dumb enought to vote for George the Second. 58 million voted for Kerry. thats about 120 million.

The United States has 300 million people... George The Second only got a minority of votes, yet we say he got a majority because that is how many people choose to vote and the Republicans say that Bush has the voice of the people. Unfortunatly my Pinpoint Teleporting proposal did not have a opposite proposal, "Keep telehubs" running against it so we will never know how many wanted to keep them. In George the Seconds case, we know that 58 million wanted him out of office.

And why is this bad?

You've accused me of being self-interested as if I were a land baron, and when I said I only own 4.5k land, you didn't response.

Is there some other reason why not wanting to get rid of telehubs is intrinsically bad?

Because people want Pinpoint teleporting.

... I'm sorry that's just rediculious.

I post

And your only thing wrong with it is that some people don't want to fly? Why would people not want to fly? To keep the game realistic for them? So then what do they do walk everwhere? Then I guess teleporting isn't an issue because that's not realistic at all.

Seriously... Hiro look at it from my perspective. I suggest what is a perfectly viable solution that deals with all of the issues you have come up with in all the last posts. At first you were complaining about people getting unwanted traffic on their land, I fixed that by saying closest linden land, your argument against that was that people would rez infront of you when your trying to drive your car on the streets, and my responce to that is rezzing them 20m above the ground in fly mode, and your responce is "What if people don't want to fly."

Then you say
Which is almost an exact copy of what I suggested before. Teleporting to nearest public land. Why is the not wanting people rezzing infront of your car no longer an issue because you suggested it instead of me? If you want to call someone a hypocrite look at this, I posted

And your responce was


Go look up in the thread, post #74. I don't know if your stealing my idea and calling it your own to just flat out annoy me, which is what it seems is your goal. Or if you actually forgot about it because you didnt' really read the post. Either way you completly contradicted yourself, congrats.

Also it seems like your worried about people not knowing why they were teleported elsewhere when the owner doesn't want them on their land. If you want to let people know you don't want them on your property do what is already in the game and put up an access list. It's already in the game! If someone teleports to your land and sees those nice little red lines around it they get the idea! Also if they try to get onto your land it gives them a nice little access denied box to make sure you know you aren't wanted there. Plus if you put that up it will automatically block people from teleporting there for you! What your asking for is Linden to implement a system that does what another system in the game already does only worse. Yay redundancy and wasted programming time.

And we're debating the best way to implement that. Welcome back to square one.

Why is the idea that people like to choose whether they walk or fly, "rediculious"?


Yes, it's called coming up with an intermediate solution. When I said from the get-go that my goal was to discuss a solution that is good for everyone, why would you imply that I'm "stealing your idea"?

I don't see why discussing two sides of an issue to come up with better solutions has to be an issue of "us vs. them".

The Best way to implement it is to allow land owners to set a landing point on their land or set for private. Any public or unsold space is open with no restrictions and just because you set your land to no teleporting does not mean the next person over has to do the same thing you did. and note: People can teleport to with-in an inch of your land. you only control the land with-in your borders.

If you had continued reading. I would have explained that the same people that don't like flying because it breaks the realizm are the same people that wouldn't be teleporting at all. Also what's rediculious is that you feel that a person being able to choose if they want to fly or not, makes the situation I posted not an acceptable solution. That's like saying that they shouldn't have island sims in the game because some people don't like to teleport.

If you had read my post you would have seen me quote where you claimed to have come up with that solution. And me quoting where I proposed it. That is called stealing my idea. Or since it's written and you don't give me credit for it I believe it's also plagiarism.
This is not a discussion at all. A discussion has both sides listening to the arguments of the other side and responding intelligently to them. You are refusing to even adknowledge/read what others have for input. As displayed by you not even commenting on when I point out your being hipocritical, or the fact that you apparently didn't notice my proof that you stole my idea and called it your own, or reading my argument as to why suggesting that teleporting someone 20m off the ground with fly on is not a valid solution because some people dont' like flying.

An argument has input from both sides. I've been reading your posts and updating my views to make new counter-arguments. As can be plainly seen by the evolution of my suggestion as the posts go on. Instead you are only 1/2 reading my posts and making rediculious responces to them where you even completly contradict your other posts in the thread. (Which I showed in my last post)

I have come to the conclusion that you are only posting in this thread still to fan the flames/troll/live up to your board title "cranky pants". This discussion has gone far enough so the lindens can obviously see that you are just throwing around words with no real thought behind them (your contradiction and 3 line responces to 50 line posts show that clearly). I believe my point in this thread was to counter your argument that the only valid implementation of p2p involved leaving telehubs in the game. And I believe I have done so. I will not continue to give you the pleasure of responding to your flame-bait posts, because I feel that alot of good posts are in this thread, and I don't want lindens locking the post.

I will no longer be responding to you, and don't feel obligated to respond to me.

EDIT: To anyone who feels i'm being harsh. Look at the post I made previous to this one. Look at how much of it he didn't even adknowledge. He didn't even properly skim it because in his responce he doesn't mention at all the content of my last paragraph. I suggest people stop responding to him and let his posts go unanswered, if you do take the time to post a lengthy responce, he will post a <5 line responce and leave 3/4 of what you posted unanswered/unread. So just return the favor

The only system that makes sense to me, and the way I thought it would work, is this:

1/ P2P enabled at the land owner's discretion.

For a commercial sim, you'd probably want to enable it so that people can TP directly to a store they have in their landmarks. This, I think, will be a big positive for SL's businesses. It's also a bonus for people like me who suffer continual lag; I crash into buildings I can't see and get stuck in structures that rezz mid-flight. It's very dismaying. I don't go to a particular, very popular texture store any more because the path there is just so difficult to traverse at all heights. I will be pleased about P2P from a commercial standpoint.

For my house, I'd turn it off. If I want you to come visit me, I'll offer you a TP. I would assume that I could instigate a traditional TP invitation even if I have P2P turned off for a given plot.

2/ Land owners also have the alternative option to set a single landing point on a plot.

Again, good option for commercial sims. In a mall, for example, you might want to land people in the centre of your shopping areas. I would assume the red target beam would still appear at the destination target in the case of this displaced landing.

This is also a benefit for residential plots, because while I may be happy to P2P enable my plot, I'm sure I'd rather you TP'd to my door than TP'd into my bedroom. I may feel that you're welcome to explore my land, but not my home. This also works with currently existing home security scripts; if you can TP into my living room at your own instigation, you bypass my door script. If I can direct your P2P landing to my doorstep (or other designated LP) I can still keep you out of my house but allow you to access my land.

3/ People attempting to P2P to non-enabled land deflected back to the nearest Telehub and given the beam to their target.

In other words, if a plot isn't P2P enabled in any way, the visitors experience will be much the same as it is now, with a telehub landing place and the big red tractor beam.

----

Apparently that isn't how it's going to work, and I can't understand that. WHY would you dump someone looking for a specific location into the nearest available but totally unrelated plot?

If I don't want people P2Ping to my house, it's completely un-neigbourly for my erstwhile visitors to be dumped next door. It's not where they want to be, it's not where I want them to be, and I assume it's not where my neigbours want them to be, either. Also, where on next door's plot will they be dumped? A designated landing point? Mid-air? The living room? The pool? This just doesn't sound very workable to me, from a privacy or practicality standpoint.

This CAN be done in a way that will protect individual land owners' privacy and right to control access while improving the general player experience. I'm a P2P supporter for the record - I have hideous Irish lag and P2P will improve my player experience quite a lot. I'm also a business owner, and I want people to have the fastest, most immediate access to my store as is possible. I'm also a private citizen, and I do not want people appearing in my home uninvited.

I'm really interested to see how it gets rolled out in the next version and how it's application changes commerce and community - because I think it will have a large impact and make interesting changes to land value and use, too.

The reason the lindens gave is multi part. The first is that the players avie has already been transported to the sim before it can check to see if the plot has teleport blocked. If it were then to kick them to the telehub it would be like teleporting twice, very un-user friendly.

Also if they were to kick people back to the telehub, the vast majority of people would start clicking on the map around where they want to go to get there, and would end up teleporting next door anyway...

As far as where they end up if their tp defaults to the nearest teleport enabled plot, you go to that plot's landing point.

You bring up a great point about the people appearing in your home uninvited. However, the vast vast vast majority of the time this will not be an issue. People for the most part aren't going to be randomly teleporting around the map, because people don't do that now. People will still be using landmarks, or teleporting to places they already know, and are welcome. And still if you don't want people in your house, security scripts or setting up access limitations on your plot, are not circumvented by the p2p system. (In your case with the door as long as you set your LP outside they will not ever teleport into your house. However realize that anyone can just sit on a prim and move it into your house to beable to get in. If they want to get in they still will beable to.)

the main goal here i think was to solve the problem of being forced to teleport into a huge freaking lag hole of invisable mall walls that hasnt rezzed yet. then making you fly 1000 meters to where you wanted to be in the first place. they work to fix that problem and now everyone is crying over land owner privacy. if you dont want someone on your land bann um simple as that ,,, so everyone please shut up and be happy you arent teleporting into instant lag and maze walls built by greedy shop owners who try to force you to their shops

I was about to say just that until I read Sera's post.

I haven't completely decided on whether I think P2P is a good idea yet, but I do have some thoughts to offer that I think are being sorely overlooked...

To bring this discussion back the way of common sense... why do you so desperately NEED to be able to teleport to any and everyone's land? The whole point between P2P teleporting is that you can get where you want to go without all the foreplay. In other words... there is no land between you and your destination. Unless randomly popping into someone's pool or living room is your thing, I cannot possibly conceive why every square meter of The Grid needs to be accessible.

Stop looking at this as some grand scheme to take away people's rights (even though I think not *allowing* people to restrict access to their land is a loss of rights itself) and look at the facts. Where are you going to be teleporting to all the time? Some random person's back yard? Or a destination you have a specific reason to go to? If the second is true, and I hope it is, then, more than likely, the place you want to get to will be open for P2P teleporting.

SL is not changing to far from the way it's always been, people. Even if you do have some radical reason to be able to pop up anywhere you can imagine, you should at least be glad for the fact that all your trips are going to be faster getting you to that place since P2P teleporting will now get you much closer than the telehub-based system does now.

That's a decent point, but I then again, "logging on" breaks the realism, too. That's why I'd allow a system that would allow people to limit that break of realism to the very beginning - that "popping in" to a new place.

I think that as we look to the future of SL, a lot of outside companies are going to be looking for a professional, realistic feel to be available to them.

Again, all this talk is about *if* the landowner is choosing to ban, I certainly agree most cases the people who are teleporting will find a receptive home.


Not quite. In your example, the person has the choice of teleporting or not.
In the example of P2P, we're already assuming that the person has accepted teleporting as a practice. But flying is not equal to teleporting - the two are seperate things.


*biting my tongue* You're really trying my patience here. Please lose the hostile attitude. I urge you to re-read my posts and reconsider what it is your accuse me of. I'm going to take this opportunity to be civil about it.


You know what? I'm tired of listening to you accuse me of things when it's clear that I have been responding to your comments in a calm and civil tone. I'm not going to respond any more.

Thank you, you explained this far better than I have been.

/bow

All of this just leads back to the fact that the telehub owners want to stop pinpoint teleporting cold. Note the desire that if a person tries to teleport to a land that is no access, guess where it throws them.... You guessed it... The telehubs.

Nice try.

I wonder if blocking teleportation to a parcel would also block teleportation from one part of the parcel to another. Even if you may want to block people from teleporting to your parcel, it would still be very useful to be able to use the upcoming llTeleportAgent function for intraparcel teleportation even when teleporting is blocked or landing point is set.

Please explain how me telling Sabrina that her comments were well-spoken "just leads back to the fact that the telehub owners want to stop pinpoint teleporting cold."?

Huh?

If you were responding to her comments, you'd quote her, but you replied to my comments to her. You seem to lack the ability to present any sort of counter-evidence to your claims.

Magnum, you are absolutely a troll. I hesitate to use that word on this forum, but you add nothing to this conversation. You have done nothing but made accusations of conspiracies and brought up exactly nothing new. You are classless in your behavior here. And from all the posts I've seen you post in this forum, you've always been classless. From now on, I will be outright ignoring your comments as they are about as meaningful as a misplaced apostrophe.

"Nice Try".