Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

3 killer ideas for groups

Angel Fluffy
Very Helpful
Join date: 3 Mar 2006
Posts: 810
12-10-2006 14:47
3 proposals, all aimed at making groups more useful.

1) Have a "can set objects to group" permission, as Travis Lambert explains here. This would mean that we could have groups that own land without giving all group members the ability to build on that land. It would allow us to have roles like 'builder' in groups. It would let us cut down littering, and invite more people to our groups for things like group chat and "set home to here", without allowing people to leave junk on our property.

2) Have group role permissions for "can start a new group IM session" and "can reply to an existing group IM session". I run groups with 1000s of members. The spam is hard to combat, because if we eject people for spamming they get angry at us (even if we told them before not to spam), but if we don't then the group turns into a spam-fest. Telling group members not to talk on the group IM channel is simply not good enough - they do it anyway, often to test the resolve of the group admins it seems. We need the ability to actually stop them IMing the group at all.
This has been discussed previously here, and while we accept it remains difficult, it'd still be nice.

3) The ability to have different group join requirements for unverifieds vs verified residents. There are some mature groups that frankly don't want unverifieds in them, either due to the spam they get from griefers, or due to the fac they are a mature area and they want to cover themselves legally. There are some other groups that would love to let all verified residents join for a set fee, but require all unverified residents to get an invite, or possible an invite *and* a fee. Essentially, there are groups that for whatever reason want to be able to treat unverified residents differently from verified residents when it comes to joining the group. It can be due to spam, griefing, mature content, ability to pay, or any number of other valid reasons.

Please reply here stating "signed" and the numbers ("1","2","3","1 and 2","2 and 3", or "all" of the ones you agree with). e.g. "Signed, 1 and 2" or "Signed, 2 and 3" :)
If you own a group, and wish to also sign on behalf of the group, then you can do so. Just list your group name and the group's member count, and say that you're signing on behalf of the group too. Please only sign on behalf of groups you own.

example :

Signed, 1,2 and 3, by Angel Fluffy, on behalf of :
Capture Roleplay, (1817 member group)
Capture Roleplay Chat, (1021 member group)
BDSM/Pet Play Guide Readers, (267 member group)
Proactive Security, (33 member group where many, very possibly most, of the members own/manage sims)
_____________________
Volunteer Portal (FAQs!) : https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Volunteer_Portal

JIRA / Issue Tracker : http://jira.secondlife.com (& http://tinyurl.com/2jropp)
Kusac Kavka
Registered User
Join date: 5 Jun 2006
Posts: 7
12-11-2006 03:12
Signed 1 and 2.
Yiffy Yaffle
Purple SpiritWolf Mystic
Join date: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 2,802
12-11-2006 05:55
Thank you angel for IMing me the link to this topic. :)
From: Angel Fluffy
3 proposals, all aimed at making groups more useful.

1) Have a "can set objects to group" permission, as Travis Lambert explains here. This would mean that we could have groups that own land without giving all group members the ability to build on that land. It would allow us to have roles like 'builder' in groups. It would let us cut down littering, and invite more people to our groups for things like group chat and "set home to here", without allowing people to leave junk on our property.

2) Have group role permissions for "can start a new group IM session" and "can reply to an existing group IM session". I run groups with 1000s of members. The spam is hard to combat, because if we eject people for spamming they get angry at us (even if we told them before not to spam), but if we don't then the group turns into a spam-fest. Telling group members not to talk on the group IM channel is simply not good enough - they do it anyway, often to test the resolve of the group admins it seems. We need the ability to actually stop them IMing the group at all.
This has been discussed previously here, and while we accept it remains difficult, it'd still be nice.

3) The ability to have different group join requirements for unverifieds vs verified residents. There are some mature groups that frankly don't want unverifieds in them, either due to the spam they get from griefers, or due to the fac they are a mature area and they want to cover themselves legally. There are some other groups that would love to let all verified residents join for a set fee, but require all unverified residents to get an invite, or possible an invite *and* a fee. Essentially, there are groups that for whatever reason want to be able to treat unverified residents differently from verified residents when it comes to joining the group. It can be due to spam, griefing, mature content, ability to pay, or any number of other valid reasons.

Please reply here stating "signed" and the numbers ("1","2","3","1 and 2","2 and 3", or "all" of the ones you agree with). e.g. "Signed, 1 and 2" or "Signed, 2 and 3" :)

RE: 1.) If I'm not mistaken, I saw that option already. :/ But even if it isn't, just do what I do on my land. I set the land to no build, but give some ranks in the group the ability to bypass no build. I agree that even though the groups got a nice overhaul, they could still use a little more cleaning up.

RE: 2.) I couldn't agree more!!! The fact is in SL, even if you tell someone it's not ok to do something, they do it anyway. I see this as griefing IMO. I duno if it's caused by stupidity or cuz their really children who lied at registration, but something needs to be done. If you can't teach people how to behave properly, then I guess you need to restrict them.

RE: 3.) I agree with this also. Having a group set to only show the join button to those who have credit card information on file and used, would prevent a lot of idiots from hijacking your group! Griefers tend to hijack groups and use them for their own purposes, like to LOLOLOL or talk about Cock-Mongler, while they plan their raids, or grid attacks. Yea they make some of them totally open...

---

I know I just said stuff that will get me flamed by unverified accounts, but you know what? It doesn't apply to you, unless your a griefer so get over it! It's a well known fact that griefers don't take SL seriously, so they don't ALL plan on getting verified! Nor do children for that matter! Some will though. I've had a paid account for 2 years and 2 months. It's not that bad ya know... Except I've witnessed SL's got the highest amount of griefers on the internet, because the company who runs it lacks the ability to maintain it. If your going to come to SL, at least prepare yourself and don't put yourself in a bad situation. >.>
_____________________
Script Su
Professional SOA Designer
Join date: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 79
12-11-2006 05:59
/ signed "1" "2" "3"

/sign all

Especially 3 cause I'm age verified.
_____________________
The LSL Repository @ sf.net. The LSL Repository is dedicated to bring open source lsl programmers together and develop the best service oriented scripts. Gridworks gives you the whole package. We also have in-house builders, scripters, web programmers, and salesmen. Premium Account||Age Verified||Gridworks Executive
Travis Lambert
White dog, red collar
Join date: 3 Jun 2004
Posts: 2,819
12-11-2006 06:45
Strongly signed on 1 & 2 :)

#1 Especially, makes the difference between needing 2 groups for a buisness (One for Members who can rez prims that will be cleaned up by autoreturn, one for those who can rez prims permanantly). You can use a single group if you employ Yiffy's method - however, if you have lots of new folks attempting to rez freebies like I do, that's not an option. More or less, what this permission comes down to is: Who should autoreturn apply to? Everyone, or who we select? I think we should have the capability of breaking this out.

#2 Would give us better control over the IMs our group members receive. Yes, our group members can block receiving notices. However the biggest problem I have aren't the official notices/messages I send out: Its the newer group members that don't understand how things work, and spam the group with a friendly 'Hi!".

I can't think of a reason not to do #3, although I wouldn't have a use for it personally.
_____________________
------------------
The Shelter

The Shelter is a non-profit recreation center for new residents, and supporters of new residents. Our goal is to provide a positive & supportive social environment for those looking for one in our overwhelming world.
Yiffy Yaffle
Purple SpiritWolf Mystic
Join date: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 2,802
12-11-2006 07:55
/signed all

Travis, Yea a group role ability for 'Can bypass Auto Return', sounds like an idea to me.
_____________________
Yiffy Yaffle
Purple SpiritWolf Mystic
Join date: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 2,802
12-11-2006 08:43
Another idea would be to flag yourself so you cant receive group sessions. Like how you can block Notices. Duno why that wasnt added to begine with. I asked for it...
_____________________
Brooks Rocco
Registered User
Join date: 3 Feb 2005
Posts: 1
yes
12-11-2006 08:55
Signed, 1 ,2 and 3 Brooks Rocco solo owner of the groups Gay Life (1384 members), Steamers, Abercrombie Boys, S.L. EAGLE, Gay Latino, Gay Strippers, SL International MR. Leather Contest and There on the Hill.
Draco18s Majestic
Registered User
Join date: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 2,744
12-11-2006 13:19
signed all

I'm kinda against #3 only because of the caste system it implements, but it would be used like block parcel access to unverifieds: in very appropriate situations where it would be needed, such as adult material or in cased of high griefer activity.