Remove llGiveInventory

Moleculor:
I totally agree with you, I'm suggesting the solution to catch run-away replication, not all replication. LL could add LSL hooks into this that would allow a script to avoid being red flagged by putting constraints on it self.

The constraints I'm thinking of are:
llSetCloneSettings(list attributes)

1. [CLONE_DIE_ON_SIM_EXIT]
   
2. [CLONE_LIMIT, integer limit]
   

The first would make it so the object can't leave the sim or rez objects into adjacent sims. This would allow the watching script to be more relaxed in it's decisions. The second would set a limit on the number of clones allowed.

Variables that would go into the red flagging:

1. User prim allotment in the sim
   
2. CLONE_LIMIT value
   
3. Rate of replication
   
4. Perceived halt of cloning (is there some capping mechanism).
   
5. Impact on sim resources of each clone.
   
6. Number of clones
   
7. Specific Sim Limits (sandbox, island, mainland etc)
   1. Does it use Listens?
      
   2. Does it spam users with inventory?
      
   3. Does it spam objects with inventory?
      
   4. Does it spam chat?
      
   
   

The answers to these questions would weighed against each other and combined. A warning given to the user if the object is getting close to being red flagged.

The goal is for this to detect trends and suggest action, but only curtail the users abilities in the event that the user is trying to do something that will endanger the sim and grid.

As i said before i don't really think this is a big issue. And as i was typing up my recommendation i bits of it were ringing in my memory as already existing in part. My experience with griefers is they don't take the time to learn the system. This one was petty compared with what a well designed one could do.

llGiveInventory isn't the problem because it is just one function. llRezObject is just as much at fault as llGiveInventory. They are the messengers, not the message; and these messengers deliever more then just pipe bombs.

----------

About public image: by selling griefing tools you alienate the community; this leads them to treat you as a crackpot. Not attacking you, just explaining.

I still don't like it. Once you impliment something like that you do two things:

You give the Lindens another excuse to start harrassing users. (Look at how often people are banned without explanation.)

You give users something further to complain about (clone limits are too low/high! Fix them!)

What's so wrong with making people actually learn how the hell to do things on their own?

Here. Here's a nice page to get you started.

This reminds me of "WIN" - Whip Inflation Now, a program instituted by Gerald Ford.

Good intentions, but goes completely counter to human nature.

People grief. It's psychologically a fact of all online virtual worlds. People also make mistakes. This is pyschologically a fact of 100% of all human beings.

Take these two items into account, and you will get 'end of the world' type replication.

The other type, the redwings replication, is much more insidious and really doesn't need to be that wild and crazy to do massive PR damage.

Any tool can be misused. There's probably a billion annoying, griefing, potentially-server-crashing things you can do in LSL, without ever touching llGiveInventory(). I guess we should just get rid of scripting entirely... it'd be safer that way! Someone think of the children!!

How about we just deal with the griefers directly, and stop messing with our nice LSL functions?

Then lets remove llRezObject, llPushObject, llSay, llShout, llApplyImpulse, llUnSit, any ability to edit things you're sitting on, the ability to sit on any object you can't walk/fly to (of course, that would make it so people couldn't get out of cages, but hey, we don't care!), and the ability to upload textures. Because they can ALL be misused.

The issue is not black and white. There are always gradations, compromises, and appropiate solutions for particular problems.

This particular problem leaves open for the capacity for global and mass havok. Reducing that capability so that any problems are localized seems like the most reasonable behaviour.

Now, what would be ideal is a bottom up solution, rather than one forced down our throats top down. A lot of people complain that LL doesn't bother collaborating with the community on the road map or technical decisions.

But why would they? We tend to be short sighted and only seem to care about our own particular needs rather than something that is benficial to the community as a whole. Not to mention generally offensive, insulting and quick to jump to accusations and blame.

Proposing a thoughtful bottom up solution proposed by the community about how to intelligently constrain its own capability for mass chaos would definitely be the right step forward in proving that we're worthy collaborators.

You probably want to think that one over a bit, and ask yourself if it really holds true. Have people who are selling push script objects alienated the community (and the forum people are not the community, by far).

Somehow, I doubt this when you see these objects on the secondlife.com homepage.

I'm being treated as a crackpot as I'm asking people to sacrifice for the greater good, rather than being forced by an external party (LL) at some unknown point in the future.

Because, I did email LL. And they do agree with me that it is a problem and they are looking for a way to throttle it.

Too bad we can't be a part of that discussion, but from the behaviour of people on these threads I really can't blame them..

I personally still don't see the issue. Some 'griefer' makes an obnoxious self-replicator. Grid goes down. Lindens rain flaming doom down on said griefer's head. Grid comes back up.

Where's the problem, here?

A lot of people complain about the weak architecture of the internet and how it is so easy to spread a worm or a virus.

If SL is ever meant to be a serious infrastructure of some kind, it needs to deal with the same problems.

So, the question is - do we have the foresight to deal with those problems now, when whole economies are yet to be completely based on these abilities?

Or do we wait until it's too late and the inertia required to change will be so immense and costly that we will be blaming our ancestors (ok, probably just ourselves) for not dealing with this problem sooner.

You're being treated as a crackpot, because you keep refusing to listen to the fundamental answer you're being given.

blaze : We HAVE to cripple this functionality, or we are doomed

us : We don't need to cripple the functionality, we need to stop its misuse

blaze : But if we don't cripple it now, it will doom us, and we'll have to cripple it in the future

us : crippling it is not the answer

blaze : But it IS the answer... it'll fix all the griefing that ails us

us : getting rid of griefers will fix the griefing

blaze : But if we can't get rid of these griefers, then we'll have to get rid of this functionality, so we might as well do it now

us : *sigh*

- Ace

oooo ... 3way

The internet has a weak archecture? So thats why is used by literally billions of people, sharing terabytes of information on a daily basis?

The only weaknesses in the internet are the applications using it. We wouldn't have this or that virus or worm if Microsoft had patched this or that security hole in their product(s). Another weakness is users, downloading programs over the internet, but this weakness lies in the user, not in the infrastructure allowing the user to download this program. Sure, we'd like the internet to automagically screen everything we do for "bad" stuff, but that would put too much control in the hands of the infrastructure.

I can understand your viewpoint if you're trying to discuss encrypted communication over a public network like the internet, but you're not, you're discussing virii and worms.
==Chris

Before opening your mouth, be sure you know SOMETHING of what you're going to say.
There is no inherent weakness on the internet that makes it easy to spread viruses.
The only weakness is microsoft's monopoly and its broken operating system.
If Windows wasn't full of holes, and had been built by someone with a clue on security, or people weren't so fskcing stupid and willing to run arbitrary code sent by strangers, there would be nothing internet-specific to allow viruses to spread.
I should add that users of non-idiotic operating systems have no problem with viruses even when they have their computer online 24/7 for years.

Blaze: 0

Community: 37

LF

May i point out you have refused to comment on my suggestion?

I know your a smart guy but i don't think you understand the level of control LL has over the sims. For example, one script they run in the sandbox's and a few other sims restricts the link distance to 256 on any axis. Another script they run tries to catch sim crashes before they happen, deleting the object before the sim takes a dive. Yet another script deletes physical objects being used to deepthink a sim. LL has so much control that building an anti-virus engine isn't at all out of the question.

Mole: if it's hyper sensitive we just complain till they make it less so.


Anyway i think you have lost this argument. Point proven by that LL hasn't commented (besides the forum Linden, no offense). If it was a major issue we would have heard from a dev or one of the four.

I "lost the argument"? .. What!?

Folks, it's not about "winning" and "losing". It's about getting the right thing to happen in the end for everyone.

But - if it really matters to you, as I have already said - LL agrees this is a problem and they plan on fixing it.

The only question is do we have a say in that solution?

I think the answer is not at this rate. Who wants to hold down a conversation with a bunch of individuals who are more concerned about who 'won' the argument rather than what the real solution to these problems are.

Its just as easy to ignore those that feel that this is a argument-competition Blaze. Many of your points are unfounded or have been successfully rebutted. There is still no definitive piece of evidence you presented that warrents the removal/reworking of llGiveInventory.
==Chris

I'm not trying to "win" or "lose" here, blaze. But I still think you're missing the point that everyone seems to be making.

The basic premise of the discussion you want to have is "llGiveInventory() is broken, so something must be done about it", and just about everyone who has chimed in on this thread doesn't buy that basic premise.

If we don't see that something that is broken, then why would we want to discuss a potential fix?

- Ace

I appreciate the attempt by all involved to tone down the flames in their postings.

Now, I have emailed LL and they *are* looking into controlling llGiveInventory. I really don't think that is a surprise to anyone here, as we all know deep down that the command can not simply go unchecked.

I appreciate Strike's suggestions as they are good, and I wasn't refusing anything, I was just having a hard time typing anything friendly when you use terms like 'crackpot'.

I have found that if I don't have something productive to say, I probably shouldn't say it.

I think a lot of the solutions could resolve around on passing sim borders. Other solutions would revolve on counting objects.

I also think a command which lets a Linden return all objects in all sims that are created by a certain user would be very useful functionality. It would deal with issues like the "redwings" incident much more agressively and could potentially take out slow moving replication objects, such as the one that Lordfly Digeridoo created.

I don't see anybody flaming, Blaze... the majority of us, it seems, just don't agree that it's a problem.

I mean, what about the problem that arises when they cripple/remove this feature? What percentage of the vendors in the game use this function? So much for the economy...

I'm a firm believer in the 'give us enough rope to hang ourselves' school of ... stuff. Give us the tools to do cool things, and if some do obnoxious things with said tools, rain fire and brimstone upon them from on high, and leave the rest of us to happily build with our tools.

Cross, any post which talks about me and not strictly llGiveInventory is a flame.

I don't know why I hold such a fascination for these people, but I guess I am much more interesting to talk about than self replicating viruses?

Throttling llGiveInventory should be done in a way that doesn't interfere with commerce, but at the same time puts a restraint on any possible global damage.

For example, I do not want to see the ability to give picture images to other players damaged, even after the red wings incident.

That would ruin Texas Holdem or certainly make it a lot more awkward.

What would be preferable is if we could detect replication much quicker, or have a way of tracking down objects which are massively 'spamming' / giving out inventory to players.

Please note, I am not necessarily saying this is the number one priority above all things under heaven and earth. I am only saying that this is a problem and should be addressed, preferably before 1.7

See!!! That's where you're wrong. None of us do and you seem to be the only one who feels this way.

- Ace

Somehow I have the feeling the Lindens are already doing this sort of stuff, with their super-secret ultra-scripting powers. I'm almost tempted to build an obnoxious self-replicator in the Island Sandbox, just to see if it'll magically self-delete.

Of course... I can't even build a high-ROF gun in LSL... I'd make a lousy griefer.