Avatar related estate scripting

as a recent estate owner, i am wondering why we don't get more controls on the persons visiting the estate, here are a few ideas, i believe, have not been covered yet:

these functions would only work if the script owner is referenced as estate owner

llAllowRez(key avatar,integer toggle); grant or block the capacity to rez objects on a per avatar basis
llAllowScript(jey avatar,integer toggle); freeze unfreeze scripts of a specified avatar
llAllowFly(key avatar,integer toggle); grant or block flying
llFreeze(key avatar, integer toggle); scripted avatar freezing
llDetach(key avatar, integer attach_id); allow to detach an attachment from an avatar, the attach_id being the standard attachment values

llMoveAvatar(key avatar, vector newpos); setpos style move of an avatar
list llGetAvatarInSimulator(integer count); return a list of the avatars in the simulator (can be clamped by the count value)
llSetGroupRestrictHeight(float meters) //height of group only lines
llSetAccountBanHeight(float meters) //height of the account level based ban

okay the two next ones are tricky but worth so many applications^^
llSetAvatarData(key avatar,integer num,string data)
string llGetAvatarData(key avatar,integer num)
these two allow to get/set temporary values on an avatar, like on web sessions.

*bump*

*bump*

come on its important!!

All these 3 things will be handled by the new group roles system in 1.12 - you'll be able to turn them off by default and then grant them back to people in the group the land is owned by or set to.
You'll be able to, for example, turn off rez for anyone not in the group, or in the group role of your choice.

We do, however, need a way to automatically return and and all prims in a region which are owned by a certain av.




On the one hand, estate owners are some of the people *least* likely to abuse in SL, simply because they have so much USD to lose if they lose their sims.

On the other hand, do we really want to give estate owners the ability to freeze people *indefinately*? Bear in mind frozen avs can't even teleport away... not even by teleporting home, IIRC.

Why not just give us scripted access to the ban tools instead? Freezing someone like that is basically the same as banning them - they can't do anything but watch the sim, and if someone is so bad you want to freeze them forever they'll probably IM people around them and grief that way, so it makes sense to just ban them.



Um, I'm confused. Don't you mean *force* the detachment of a certain attachment?
Personally I'd suggest that teleporting someone with griefing attachments *home* or banning them from the sim is a much better, and more permant solution, as it doesn't let them just TP back and keep annoying you



Why do we need this?



Again, why do we need this?




Personally, I'm in favour of removing ban/access lines entirely, and replacing with a completely different, more secure *and* more pretty system here, which would not only make parcels more secure, it would also eliminate ban and access lines (which, lets face it, are ugly).




Could you give us some examples of where this would be useful?

storing temporary information on the avatar object itself it can be anything, quest informations for a game,virtual gold coins, without needing an attachment to store the said infos, it would clear when you tp from the sim anway

for the rez script fly the interest is to have it on a per avatar basis and to be able to grant or reject the right on the fly

The problem with the linked proposal is that it's too much of an omnibus. LL almost certainly won't implement all of it as listed, and if they pick and choose from it you're just as likely to end up with a mishmosh like the new snapshot system as something that's actually an improvement.

The most important part of it as far as I'm concerned is the change in definition of "access". Instead of "no access" meaning "you get bounced off this parcel", it should mean "you never gets any information from this parcel" and "this parcel never gets any information from you". The contents of the parcel vanish from the world, leaving nothing but the default ground texture... you can walk or fly through it but you're in a "phantom zone" as far as the people in the parcel are concerned... and vice versa.

Restrict the number of scrits an avatar can wear in attachments on a estate, that would help quite a lot.
If you see lagg vanish after avatar x left you know what i mean.
Other would be restrict certain function, servercalls, email from objects <like vendors> and so on.

I think llMoveAvatar is equivalent to llTeleportAgent, a function promised for 1.8 and never implemented.

For the per-avatar keys, you can implement that off-grid. Just have a webserver that maintains a list of key-value pairs indexed by llDetectedkey().