Reframing The Debate: Avoiding Autoreturn. Right? Wrong?

Topic: Avoiding AutoReturn (whether manual, autoreturn, or temp-on-rez autoreturn) by combining temp-on-rez, replication and movement.

Example: Pete Fat's world-wide "things" (nobody knows what they are, what their purposes is, and who cares). Manual returning of one of them just spawns more. They are Temp-On-Rez which exempts them from AutoReturn on people's land. They self-replicate constantly so that new generations replace the 80-second autoreturn placed on temp-on-rez old versions. (this is just from information people have gathered, we can't see the code)

Rules: Let's not get into the benefits or detriments of what they might be used for (land scanners, mappers, communication satellites, etc). This is not about Land Scanners. Let's just focus on the rules surrounding AutoReturn, land owner's rights, and shared server resources. Pete's things are just an example. Avoid flamewars about him or land barons or anyone specifically.

Discuss!

If I didn't allow it to be on my land in the first place, I don't want it there, generally. Even less so if it's consciously avoiding my attempts to remove it. That is akin to adware or other nasty viruses.

If your project can't get approval from the people's land you're using, then you shouldn't be running the project. Period.

Lf

Ditto

Agreed.

In addition, it usually gets pointed out that we can't ban objects from being over our land because then people couldn't fly over in planes. The Lindens appear to support this easement. I am wondering if there is any way we could ban any objects that don't have AGENT's attached to them. This would allow a flying vehicle to pass, but not a cube of unknown intent.

It is our land, we pay for it. We should get to determine how it is used. I still cannot understand how anyone can feel that they can use my land without my consent.

*claps* Bravo.

There was something about the scanner argument that had a bad stink to it, and Hank put his finger right on it.

My vote: When a land owner turns on auto-return their expectation is that non-member objects will be returned. Defeating this feature through clever scripting should be against TOS.

i agree.. if part of any project involves conscious decisions to do any of the following, chances are pretty good its something most people don't want on their land in the first place:

1) avoid detection
2) avoid deletion
3) avoid selection
4) bypass land/system clean up properties
5) self replicate

If any of these things are being done by an object that is not on its owners own land, honestly it should be grounds for deletion, and potentially censure or disciplinary action on the account that created it, and/or uses it, pending LL review of the object's actual purpose.


let me elaborate:

avoiding detection: This would be accomplished by having the objects be far outside the normal day to day locations people travel in SL (aka being below ground, or above 200m) additionally being invisible, or really really really tiny, while scripted (since people cannot determine if the scripts contain listen/relays of public chat for spying, scanners, or what have you... more informative object beacons as to what functions/events are being used by a script might alleviate this

avoiding deletion: This is done by having objects replicate themselves, or have a fixed spawner that will keep spitting them out, basically infinitely. aka no matter how many you delete, there will always be more.

avoiding selection: A combination of being invisible and/or being extremely small and/or being extremely fast moving so that it is nearly impossible to select this object even on your own land, and see what it is

bypass system/land cleanup properties: Using temp on rez with self/spawn replication so that people cannot easily simply 'return' all the objects over their own land via the land properties GUI,

self replicate: beyond spawn replication which is annoying, but managable, self-replicating objects are extremely dangerous in SL and have the potential for almost completely shutting down the main land SL continent if they 'escape' There must be a kill switch in ANY self replication expiraments, and honestly unless you constrain them from the beginning to only replicate on your land, chances are you are going to eventually get into trouble with this.


Now i know many objects do one of the above at some point... and doing that, on your own land, is okay... when objects do 2, 3, even 4 or all 5 of these things however, and are released so that they run over everyone's land... honestly that says something about the intentions of the creator and its not good. This is a relatively new phenomena in SL and i think overall while not individually destructive necessarily.. the potential for it is there, and LL should probably come out, and basically kill any and all current systems that do this, talk with the creators of said systems, and issue a formal decree banning them.

Further use/creation of networks like these should honestly be considered in violation of TOS against viral code, and continued used of them should be subject to the regular disciplinary provisions such violations entail

If I have autoreturn enabled on my parcel, its not just to keep the prim count in check.

At my place, I encourage newbies to use my patio and roof as a sandbox, as long as they're not being offensive. Autoreturn cleans up those messy scripts, particles, and other junk objects that the person forgot to delete every couple hours - while of course I want to keep prims in check, it's also to make sure lag is kept in check.

I can't think of any good reason to have objects or scripts that can circumvent the autoreturn process.

Travis

While autoreturn would be good for static items or items not scripted as saavy as Pete's, wouldnt we just be using more resources to combat a never ending flow? Also whos to say people wont simply make their scripts and methods even better. Most of us have been blind about these kinds of things. Now we become more aware so will the things trying to avoid detection. At the end of the day there will be good reasons to revamp autoreturn and such tools. However it will not stop everything. Scripters will just find places on Sims where land owners arnt monitoring and do their work over that land.

What we need to do is to get rid of the need of some of these scripts. What usually drives these needs? Money and power. Quick and encompassing information about land/object prices or availability is very enticing. Scripts that ease drop on people gives those listening knowledge that wouldnt have had otherwise which is also power. Ease dropping scripts usually would be in static locations and are easier to detect. But small, invisible, fast moving land scanning scripts are much harder to detect and prevent. I say dont fight the script. Fight the need or power that this gives. If 0.001% of the population holds 100% of an advantage (mainly in effeciency by constant grid wide usage of resources) over the rest in terms of high profit items such as land availability/price, then something is wrong. As stated in other threads, have the Lindens make this information readily available in just as effecient (or more) ways via mailing lists or webpages. Once the playing field is leveled the need for such scripts will go away. If a scripter has to use everyones land and resources constantly to collect this information, then the information should be everyones. Very few people have mentioned not only the cost in terms of land prices 99% of the population without this information has been paying, but even in terms of opportunity to find low price land and good deals. This does affect a players experience.

My main concern is not whether particular objects actually are harmful, or that particular objects are used for a purpose I don't like, or are created by people I don't like, or even that they "use my land".

Personally, I don't care about any of that.

My concern is that the techniques used to do THESE things:


*COULD* be used maliciously. Not ARE being used maliciousy, COULD be used maliciously.

The rules need to be (a) the same for everybody, and (b) enforcable.

Its a bit like saying people are allowed to climb your windows while you are not home, providing they don't take anything. How would the police enforce that rule? (Its an analogy about rules that can't be enforced, not the behavior of somebody's robots.)

Buster

Wrong. Simple as that. There shouldn't even be an actual need to debate it.

no what i am arguing is that these things, should *BE* considered malicious behavior themselves... unless they are done on your own property... You should *NOT* ever have a need to do any of these. If you do, you are probably doing something wrong

Here's a conspiracy theory.
MAYBE, just MAYBE, Pete didn't know that temp-on-rez objects couldn't be returned!
Amazing concept isn't it! Well, at least *I* certainly didn't.
And MAYBE, just MAYBE, he made those prims temp-on-rez out of COURTESY to the land owners and their prim limit! The shock! The horror!

And if you are not doing something wrong in itself, you are doing something wrong ANYWAY by trying to bypass other people's property rights.

PS: Now he knows Eggy, and they are still there.
Too bad, retry, you might be more lucky next time (but i wonder if you are not tired to have ANY and EVERY of your points easily demolished).

were that the case he would most likely have not had them auto-replicate.. i do believe the primary motivation for temp-on-rez was probably so that they could be spawned even on full parcels, aka they couldn't be 'blocked' in by a full parcel territory. The no return may very well have been incidental

Arguably all of these characteristics fall within the mainstream of business practises and procedures today. You're asking LL to ban the SL "virtual equivalent" of global data-gathering, research and development, decision-matrix, and marketing functions. Right or wrong, it might be hard to do in what one resident recently referred to as a capitalism-cum-corporatism simulator.

I can imagine a number of different justifications for any of the above characteristics, depending on purpose. I can also imagine many different ways each of the above characteristics can be abused. I imagine that people who want a blanket ban on such devices can justify their point of view very well. I can also imagine how a blanket ban can be abused, too.

I don't anticipate that there would be too many good reasons why a scripted object should be stealthed, invulnerable, self-relicating, and global in range. But there are probably a few. So perhaps the issue is between banning and careful regulation. Perhaps we should consider a good application process to a "higher authority", an approval process, and a disclosure policy.

No, this is not a "government advocacy" post. LL will do well.

Your theory doesn't hold water.

If they were just temp on rez, then they COULD be dealt with.

The fact is, they replicate and return.

Anyone smart enough to make the system would know /exactly/ what the implications of that were.

Yes. Yes we are. And it's not hard to do. All LL has to do is say that it will be so.

Simple.



How?



None which have more weight than the arguments against.

Period.

the argument isn't against people trying to hide their scripts, the argument is against people trying to hide their scripts on *OTHER* people's land, without notifying them, seeking permission, or offering to share the resources/information/money they gain with the people whos resources they are abusing.

Its like if you went home and had a stock broker sitting infront of your computer whom you'd never seen before and he just went 'well i needed to make a trade and your window was open'... that doesn't fly

You actually can return them. If you go upto 400m and can catch one over your land
and return it manually. Ofcourse then another one shows up 30 seconds later. The net result being an object constantly, except for the few seconds between derez and the next one gets there, over your land without your permission and actually despite your permission.

Nobody should be faulting Pete here. Pete has broken no rules.

Don't say the argument -- there are several points of view here.

You can find fault with a person for reasons other than obeying the letter of the law.

thats a meaningless statement when what we are saying is that the rules are inadequate to stop damaging behavior of objects. He knew very well what the overall reaction to these objects would be, and took pains to hide them from the general populace of SL, otherwise he would have asked people for permission to use their land, and not made the suckers hidden, replicating, hard to select, and near impossible to permanently remove

The title of this thread is "Reframing the Debate." You're trying to shoehorn my comments into your own bipolar framework. Won't fit.

Period.

It's alternative framework. If you can't see it, others might.

Eltee, I understand your point, but I don't accept your metaphor about the stockbroker who sits in front of my computer, in all imaginable circumstances. In most, yes. I'm saying that there may be limited and regulated circumstances where such characteristics may be acceptable and desirable for most or all concerned. And I'm asking why we can't have a process of determining that.

edited for typos

Not really.

I perfectly understand your comments. I see them, as you say.

I'll even agree that there may be 'safe' uses of this technology, in theory. That is, a use of it that the goals are not something I would find offensive.

I just disagree with the view that the use of this technology to circumvent land-owners rights and fair-used of simulator resources would ever be acceptable. It's the means that I reject. I'm not a generaly a proponent of "If the ends justify the means" as a code of ethics or as a code of law.