Philip Disappoints On Bounce Scripts

From the Town Hall going on right now:



Well, this was truly disappointing. Philip "sighed" a lot about bounce scripts, but you'd wish he'd just listen to his own staff person, Lee Linden.

Lee identified a criteria for approval/non-approval of ejection scripts:

1. Do they provide ample warning in time for an avatar to fly away?
2. Do they eject back home?
3. Do they eject really far?

Currently Lindens are not operating uniformly to rid the grid of these pernicious devices that clearly fit into these criteria of no warnings/tp home/far eject.

What's to sigh about? We need action, not sighs.

I know what the answer is: make it a violation of the TOS to push avs in this regard, remove the offending scripts, ban players who repeatedly use them.

Is that so hard? Is that such a mish-mash?

Only if you make script-writing centric to your world, and not enjoyment-of-game centric to your world.

Wrong.

Best answer is to make a preference that will allow each user to select their own level of susceptibility to being pushed. By "level" I mean the strength and frequency of the external force. This way you can protect yourself from excessive force such as orbiting, but continue to be bumped by other players or milder pushing. Or no pushing at all. You get to decide.

This will allow all the legitimate uses for these kinds of scripts to contiune while putting an end to push-based griefing.

Still. Can't say my panties are in a bunch over this one.

I'll go with the level settings. Frankly, I don't like being in one spot and then wind up around 4 sims away from there due to a C4. It makes me want to hunt someone down and beat the.. (saves that for therapy). Now, I just report 'em. Specially since LL was nice enough to include a way to see who did what with scripts that effect you.

Now, I don't mind being pushed by other players, since about 3/4's of it is due to lag.

I know there were once very valid reasons for allowing parcel lockdown to only cover up to 40 meters. I assume this must still be in place, or people wouldnt use these security scripts.
The main reason I have heard is that it would suck terribly to be zipping along with your jetpack (or whatever you zip along with) at 600 meters, and crash into someone's red text cage.

But now it seems to be a question of, which is worse? Occasional collision, or agressive security systems?

People clearly are determined that they *will* have thier privacy, one way or another. Maybe it's time to recognize it- and make some sensible, official tools for it.

Ok, now that I have smeared myself with asbestos pudding, here is a suggestion:

Why not just bite the bullet and allow us to set the minimum and maximum altitudes for the privacy lock-out zone on our parcels?
That way if someone wants thier land on the ground to be free acess, but also wants privacy for a sky-house or party-box or whatever, they can have it.
They impede some air space, but not all of it, provided they are responsible with the range they set for the no-entry area.

People probably wont be responsible with it, but they arent with thier security scripts either. Again, a matter of which is worse.

Amen Neph!

lol you love to point out errors but your request seem a little rash, first owners should not take drastic measures agreed. but honestly prok denial of these options allow grievers and or its own set of issues. there IS NO one answer that solves all the problems, and there never wil be. the lindens are adapting to the needs of the society, even if not at the favored pace. I have seen MANY issues addressed and solved as many more arise. I understand it is frustrating to be involved in this level of the game, but i can assure you your imput can make it a better place for the next generation (think of your kids man!). philip dosnt have the leasure to just grant every whim, its impact can be deep seeded and takes discussion. I would love to see them (LL) go in and spend more time with the land permissions and groups. IT would be great if they offered every concievable option for the owner to choose from and for it all to be very passive in its methods. but please bear with a system that is only going to find 2 problems for every one it solved, thats the nature of growth and development. I personally feel the lindens are working on a plethera of task and will attempt to best solve such land issue as you discribed as soon as priority permits. (bounce scripts)

I will show you MY bounce script! wana see?

Haha, I was right. Told ya. You optimist always end up disappointed.

I have said it before therefore in total agreement with you Neph.

Hear here!

It is possible for people to have thier sex-ball^H^H^H^H^H^Hprivacy and still let me and my fellow pilots and flying avatars fly by/over/under/around!

I make a banning device that obeys Lee's rules. It's called "Perimeter Guard"

Now that is good, reponsible use of the tools. Kudos!

Well if Jack has done it, we can at least steer all those wannabee mafia types to go buy his script.



Said from the perspective of a true scripterati, or loved one of a scripterati, or some other kin that places the scripterati at the center of the universe, and says all scripts Must be Free, and you can never ban one just because it does *some things* you don't like.

Your notion of making the bouncing something I can tune up and down is completely silly if an eject script can override me and push me back to my home base without warning, so that your bounce-protector won't have time to activate. And...you bounce protector isn't invented yet so it requires calling on people to make it and test it and deploy it....And let's say I now put on this bounce protector. Yet another attachment. Will I fly over sim seams? Will I lag sims? And all this, just because somebody couldn't just work the lot tools???

What are the "legitimate uses" of these scripts that cannot be achieved in the same fashion by lot tools? There aren't any.

It's ok to kill off scripts, Aimee, no need to get your knickers in a twist. A few less scripts in this world would only make it run faster.

I've heard stories of people getting suspended for shooting at griefers on their own land. Is it true?

Assuming it is true, tell me - and this is a rhetorical question, but anyone who wants to answer should do so - why is it a hangin' offense to orbit someone who is harassing you on your own land, but perfectly alright to teleport home someone who was just passing through? Or to eject them, which is a huge hassle if they were in a vehicle?

I say that these devices - none of which has EVER given me even one second of notice - are a form of griefing, and their use should be punishable on the same level as people who randomly orbit other people.

Huns, yes it is true, "but he/she/it started it" is not seemingly viewed by LL as a valid defense; they orbit you, report 'em - you orbit them, you are equally guilty in the eyes of the local constabulary. I don't think this bad policy as it simply implements the basic playground maxim: don't hit back.

Are the policies regarding land-banning, kick-scripts, etc. inconsistent at present? Yep. There are some interactions where right and wrong are ill-defined as SL is not RL and our common sense about the latter does not apply. In some regards, SL is like speculative fiction where most things are as they are but with small tweaks to some parameters. Myriad novels have been written exploring the moral structure of worlds that are nearly, but not quite, what we know.

Has anyone yet figured a way to cut the gordian knot of SL morality? I don't think so; we've been exploring other worlds since at least Jules Verne and very many clever people have failed to ameliorate the problems consistently.

We are talking about a two of different things here.

Teleporting AVs home: Yes. I agree with you. Useless when better land security tools finally come out. I would like to see this go away forever.

Push Scritpt: Currently user created anti-push scripts do exist and have for quite some time and they are not laggy. But they are an all-or-nothing deal, and they do some wonky things with your AV. What *I* am talking about with the fine-tuning of av pushing is a feature created by the Lindens that will appear in your preferences. Two sliders, one that sets the maximum push force that can be used on your av, and one that sets the maximum hits per minutes you will allow your av to be hit by a push. This will not be laggy. It won't be silly either.

By letting us all select our acceptable level of push we can avoid griefing while still enjoying scripted toys such as trampolines.



I think..maybe between the two if us, I may be the more relaxed one. By a LOOOONG shot baby. You stick to ranting and leave the funniness to me.

By there way... WHERE this THIS come from? You're not making any sense. Stop painting charactertures of people you don't know.

This is a really good idea. Last year, I wouldn't have agreed, but given that landowners are in love with banning everyone from their land, now I'd rather bounce off red ban-bars than be ejected from my vehicle unexpectedly.

About the minimum and maximum dials -- responsible landowners will set these to cover just enough volume to protect their home. But most would extend it from ground level up to space. I suggest allowing a maximum protection range of 60 or 70 meters to a maximum of 768 meters, above which you can't have builds anyway.

BRILLIANT. I LOVE IT. IT'S PERFECT.

And we still need to ban those God damned ejection/teleport scripts.

I dont see it as perfect. What if I own a store and some other person owns all the land around it and make it private up to 768m? Will my customers have to buy jetpacks or xwings to fly over my neighbors property just to get to my shop? Sounds rediculous.

Read Cubey's whole post.

I did. And I still see how I can block access to another parcel using his idea.

Blocking access to another person's build is against the TOS, I believe, and would then be addressed in the same way over-agressive security scripts are now: abuse report.

-Ghoti

Agreed, but I could still make it a pain in the ass with this new suggestion to travel past my plot and still be within the TOS.

When I was imagining building a city sim, one idea I had was a no-build horizontal slice of space for travel. Just as an example, you could disallow builds or bans between 50 meters and 80 meters. People could fly in that range knowing they would not be blocked by anything. As long as your property was accessible from the top or bottom of this slice, people would be able to get to it.

<edit> Now that I think about it, you could put the telehubs in this empty layer, which would make them much less annoying too. </edit>

I don't know if that's something that could be adapted to the whole grid though, or where you'd want to place the travel slice. For instance, if it were at 50-80 meters, I could easily imagine people blocking out the sky with ads and malls. But I thought I'd throw in my two cents

1. You can already block access to another parcel using security scripts if you get the urge.

2. Cubey recommends a maximum total security range of only 60 or 70 meters per parcel.

3. Blocking access to another parcel is against the TOS.