"port to me" should be toggle-able

"Port to me" is not one button easy, it's not done by yourself, you have to be given a port invite, and accept it. There is no way to teleport yourself a few meters instantly. Also "sitting long distance" is not an issue at all. I don't think people understand how much stuff in SL you would destroy if they got rid of llSitTarget. It would make all teleport scripts not work. So no more right click sitting on an object to get teleported up to your skybox. No more intersim teleport boxes in estates. No more up and down arrows in the ivory tower.

What you and a few others are suggesting. Is to completly destroy "port to me" to let people be lazy in their code and not check for cheaters in games that they make in sl that one person in 10,000 might be affected by. That's just silly. There are hundreds of reasons to keep "port to me" as it works right now and has worked since they added it. And about 3 reasons to change it to follow the new port to land teleport rules. It doesn't give property rights to owners in any way shape or form. It just takes the people 5 extra seconds to get there after being sent a teleport request and landing next door.

What's next after this? Outlawing jetpacks/vehicles because they let you move faster? Those break "race games" even more, and are almost impossible to prevent by using scripts. The wings I have let me speed up my avie to fly at 10x normal flight speed. The only thing disabled p2p on a plot would do is make me have to dodge buildings to get there in about 2 seconds instead of just getting there instantly.

Also if my land has p2p disabled, and someone gives a port to me invite from that land. The person is going to rez at the nearest landing point. What happens if someone's landing point is inside their house? Now every time someone ports to your land, they are going to be ending up in your neighbors house. (Telehubs are being removed saying "they should go to the nearest telehub" is not a valid argument)

I don't know. the real question is where the balance point is. Port to me will contrinue to be useful even in the P2P world, because the nearest landing point may still not be where you want to be.

It's got a value, a small one maybe, but it's got value. So the question is... will removing port-to-me save enough? Perhaps that value should be explicitly compensated for, so it should raise your rent a bit if you to turn it off. I wouldn't mind paying a couple of bucks more a month to apply the few restrictions I do apply, if it meant that there weren't big chunks of land that seem to be set "no building" or "no script" for no apparent reason.

See, I don't see "absolute control" as an automatically good thing. Everything's a balance.

If you'd bothered to read, you'd realise that what you've just written is hyperbole. Not one person has suggested completely destroying "port to me" at all. The suggestion is to give the ability for the land owner to disable it if they need to.

As for lazy code, dear me, please develop things in SL for a while and then tell me if what's being asked for is because we're lazy. No, please. Seriously. Do some serious development work on a large scale and you'll soon realise that coders spend most of their times working around the shortcomings of SL's tools. But no, we're lazy. Yes, really.

Quite why the suggestion of an option that a land owner could use and it be completely optional for them should create such foaming-bluster is beyond me.

No, I wouldn't mind paying more either to apply more restrictions. But, as I said before, you have to address one thing at a time, and the only reason I see this as a good place to start is because teleporting is being worked on currently.

Allowing land owners to force those who are ported to their land by somebody else to go to the landing point, for instance, should be their choice - in the same way that they're being able to set a landing point, or not, with the new P2P changes. It's their land at the end of the day, so why should their settings be circumvented (should they not wish them to be) by "port to me"?



Sometimes absolute control is necessary in order to achieve what you wish to achieve. This is something that LL must sit there and ponder long and hard. Some things just aren't tenable without having absolute control, yet other things require that absolute control doesn't exist. I don't envy them, but messing around in the middle gets us nowhere really and might end up leaving everybody unhappy. At least with an option, and this isn't really something that's as invasive as ban lines, for instance, people can decide for themselves.

I don't expect anything to be done about this in all honesty, but it seems as good a time as any to throw my hat into the ring about it.

Or maybe none of these need to be corrected because they're all useful.
That's not what I meant to imply, and I'm sorry it came across that way. See my previous message for more details.
We're talking about a game where there's already something at the end point to detect the winner, so there's no additional cost to keep track of whether the winner at the end wasn't at the beginning. You can also use volume detects which aren't highly laggy, since the P2P user appears in the air and will impact a floor level detector when they land.
That means they're an opportunity for someone willing to write that code to sell it... and help drive the Linden economy.
But in that scenario the cheater is the one who invited the other guy in, and he's the one you have to worry about spoiling it... and he didn't use P2P to get there!

You forgot to add 'in my opinion'. (chuckle)

Let's just say if LL were all you seem to think they are, and doing all you seem to claim they are, this thread wouldn't be happening.



Wishful thinking is nice. I prefer conclusions based upon observation over time.

To each their own, eh?

Why? There's all kinds of limits on what you can or can't keep people from doing on your land. It doesn't seem to me axiomatic that land owners should be able to control everything by default, at least not wthout a discussion of why this particular behaviour needs to be absolutely controlled.
Sometimes it is. And sometimes it isn't. And sometimes it's harmful. I don't know which it is, in this case, but I don't see anything wrong with trying to discuss the tradeoffs, the advantages and disadvantages of an explicit ban as opposed to finding tools that can make control easier.

Can you elaborate on why you think this one's important enough to make a new law of physics? I mean, sure, throw your hat in the ring... but how about explaining some more about the hat?

Hey, while we're on the subject of landowner control, I'd like to know why LL doesn't allow landowners to make their ground look like piles of giant antlers, and restricts that capability to people who own a whole island. I'd MUCH rather be able to paint grass on my land than restrict access to that degree... I mean, it's not like I can't seed grass (or antlers) in real life.

The reason it would destroy port to me is that there is no way to know if it's enabled or not on that land. If I send someone a port to me request I expect them to pop in about 2 meters away from me at most, sending a port 2 me and having the other person pop in 2 sims over at what used to be a telehub is rediculious. Especially when if i sent them instead a box containing a script that uses the new llMapDestination with my location, when they spawn it, they could teleport to that places landing point instantly (put in on rez a check to see if i'm the owner, if i am it records it's position, if i'm not the owner it sends the owner a llMapDestination to the recorded position and kills itself) would take 3 seconds to script up. Would take 3 seconds to send to someone (pull it out of inventory, take it, drop it into their inventory) and then all they have to do to teleport directly to me is rez it and hit teleport on the map that comes up.

The problem I have with allowing owners to disable port to me on their land is that all it does is annoy visitors, in return for giving land owners yet another permission they can set, even though it is a completly pointless permission.

Also as far as my comments about the lazy code go. I do a lot of scripting. In fact i'm going to be in game later for problary 4hrs trying to get a ride/game that i'm scripting for someone working. I understand how you have to script around limitations. However the example your using for justifying disabling of port 2 me is something that is easially scripted around. Simply run a sensor at the start line, get the avies that are racing and pass their keys over to the finish line to check that the winner actually started the race. If you want you can even have a check point in the middle and just pass the information along. Put little guide markers along the race track every 100 meters or so and just have them pass on the list down the line using llShout. You could also have every checkpoint run a sensor and check all the checkpoints to make sure that the winner passed the checkpoint while on his way to the finish line. You said that it's a bad thing to do because llSensor is so laggy, but all you would have to do for a simple race (no checkpoints) is scan once right before the start of the race. Your obviously scanning already to find out who wins. If instead of doing 5 minutes of extra programming, you wand LindenLabs to do extra work to change a feature of the game that isn't causing any major problems. I call that being lazy.

Yes, you are all right, thinking about it. I really do need to take less interest in my personal wishes for SL, and I mean that honestly. It comes across as being awfully selfish, I guess, which isn't my intention but I appreciate that it may appear so.

Basically, we have 2 choices:

1. Give landowners total control over who can visit their land.
2. Don't.

The first makes sense for multiple reasons:
- They pay for the land. People ought to have rights to things they own.
- We're not communists who share everything.
- There is already public roadways and pathways.
- There is so much land out there that if you don't like it how one area is done, just go somewhere else.
- This works like the regular Internet - people who host servers decide permissions.
- This works like the real world - private landowners can choose not to have visitors, and violating is illegal - "Tresspassing".

Game dev.

It's one button on a person's profile to invite them, and it's one button for the receiver to accept. That's what I meant. -- no camera movement and scripting tricks involved.


Who suggested removing llSitTarget? I was alluding that we should put a limit to how close you need to be to sit on something, both via regular "Sit" from the pie menu and llSitTarget, but I never suggested removing it. Nor did I suggest altering the way llSitOffset works.

The thing is... I can basically break through walls by maneuvering a camera where I want to go, and sitting on something. It is an issue.


That is silly, but not for why you mean, instead for you suggesting it.

Just because there's one less thing to check for in bug checking doesn't mean scripters will be any less diligent. They'll just have one less (major) exploit to deal with.


Okay ... what are those 100s of reasons? I'm listening. I'm interested in finding a solution that fits everyone's (or 95% of people's) needs. Are you?


Fallacy of false slippery slope.

I think the solution to that sort of issue is to give greater control over what scripts can be run on a sim - for instance, instead of just allowing/disallowing foreign scripts by owner, perhaps instead it'd be wiser to check for creator, so people can used essentially sanctioned scripts.


I don't like the nearest landing point option. I think nearest telehub is the best solution.

Yes, they are useful. What I'm suggesting keeps their usefulness and adds more value to them.

If there's a way you see that my suggestions cut their usefulness (other than overriding land owner rights) please say so, and we can all address these and come up with a better solution for LL to implement.


Again, even if the person is discovered and ejected, simply seeing the end of the game ahead of time can be a huge loss for the game developer.