Locking Attachments on Avatars

--- <EDIT> ----
I (Angel Fluffy) am no longer trying to push for this proposal, because I have some doubts about 1229, and there are other proposals in the secondlife.com/vote feature voting tool which are clearly much more important for the good of SL as a whole than both 1228 and 1229. Thus, I'm going to spend my effort pushing for those more important proposals, rather than 1228/1229.

--- </EDIT> ---

There are TWO proposals that fall under the heading of 'locking items', both of which are covered in this topic.

The first proposal covered in this topic is the Check with wearer before detaching item proposal, which is covered in THIS post. This proposal forces the wearer to accept a confirmation dialog box before being allowed to remove detach some items. This feature is intended to help people avoid accidentally removing small, hard to find, invisible or essential items, (such as wedding rings, jetpacks, shields, collars, etc etc etc) by accidentally putting something else on their attachment point, or forgetting to reactivate them when they switch avatar.
It will not stop people removing the items if they really wish to, but it will stop them from doing so by accident.

The second proposal covered in this topic is the check with another avatar before before detaching item proposal, which is covered by a later post in this topic. Briefly, the aim of this proposal is to allow attachments to set themselves so that the wearer cannot drop or detach them without the permission of another avatar, however the wearer may opt to permenantly delete the item they are wearing to remove it. This proposal would open up an entirely new market for 'single use' avatar attachments, such as costumes, which can only be worn once and must be deleted after their one use. It would also add much better support for BDSM players in second life who want items which genuinely lock in a way which makes removal impossible, or at the very least costly to the wearer.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------ Proposal #1 - check with wearer before allowing detach
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This proposal is now up for voting at http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1228 .
More details on the proposal are on that page:
------------------
Lets have a script-settable property on attachable objects, called 'locking' or something like it, which works as follows:
1) Any object can set or unset this property on itself
2) If the avatar to which the object is attached tries to remove the object, and the object is set locked, a dialog box will appear asking "This object is locked on to you. Do you wish to take it off anyway?" with the default answer being 'no'.
3) If the avatar tries to replace it with another object bound to the same slot, then a box pops up saying "Object <name> in slot <name> is locked on you. Do you wish to replace it with object <name> anyway?".

This would be useful for :
1) Objects that you want to keep on you even when you're changing everything else about your avatar.... for example, some forms of tool script, shield, wedding ring, jetpack, etc etc etc which you want to leave on all the time and don't want to have to re-wear them every time you change avatar, especially as they're not copyable and thus you can't just put a different copy in each avatar folder.

2) Some forms of sex play (which is VERY popular in SL!) use objects such as locking collars for master/slave play, and honestly it's too easy to remove objects which are locked - so easy that the person roleplaying the slave can do it accidentally. I'm suggesting that there should at least be a prompt before removing some objects - as a sort of safety.

3) Some objects are invisible when attached (shields, etc) and thus you cannot tell if you're wearing them easily.... so it makes sense to make it impossible to *accidentally* unwear them - that way you don't have to, for example, check that your shield is on every time you walk into a combat zone that expects users to have shields.


In summary :
1) This feature would probably be simple to implement - it requires only a new property on attachments and a small script in the UI prompting users about if they're really sure they want to remove/detach objects with this property.
2) This feature would be very useful, for anyone with lots of avs who wants to keep some objects attached even when they change avs - which is a large number of people, I think..

------------------------------------------------------

The *second* proposal is different - it covers actually stopping the wearer detaching an attachment under certain conditions. It is described at http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1228 and in a later post in this thread. You can also vote for it in the SL voting system by going here and allocating your votes to it.

Hm.... secondlife.com/vote told me to post this here before proposing a vote on it, so I am - is nobody going to send comments in?

It's been suggested before, although your implementation makes some sense - I could care less about the folks who want to force a collar on someone, but being able to hold on to my HUD Jetpack and AO when I'm switching clothes would be a godsend.

I had a idea about 8 months ago i think. A Special Folder in your inventory you can place attachments and body/clothes pieces that when you drag a folder onto you, the items in this special folder would not be removed. Like lets say you are wearing a luskwood wolf avatar, and you wish to change clothes by dragging a folder onto you. your wolf avatar is going to all detach and youl have to attach it all back. If we had this special folder, we could stuff the wolf av in that and it will never come off untill we detach it manually. ;p

Personally I'd go with a property objects can have - that way you wouldn't need to rearrange your inventory to lock an object - any script could do it
Plus you could have objects lock other objects (via msging them and telling them to lock themselves, on some high numbered channel), and other time-saving things.

The Proposals make sense becuse a lot of people have more then 1 av i can see it helping them alot. The pop up massage is common sense on items that lock like collars.

This proposal will also help with preventing unintended swaps when there are conflicts on attachments. For example, when I am wearing a furry Avatar, I NEVER want my tail to 'fall off'. Yet it's all too easy to put on a skirt or a belt that chose to use the same attachment point, and *poof*, my tail's missing! Or try on a set of wings, and my neck ruff vanishes.

I had thought that the recent changes to indicate what was attached where were, in part, supposed to prevent that from happening. Yet it doesn't appear that they do. We *should* get a dialog asking us to confirm any attachment replacements, and indicating what attachment point the two items use. For example:

"Do you want to replace 'Fox Tail - LF' with 'Floral print obi', on attachment point 'spine'?", with a default yes/no reply of "No".

I wouldn't mind having to 'unlock' a few parts before I could switch from one avatar to another, or having to reply to a few dialogs. I change avatars far less often than trying on new clothes!

"Check with wearer before detaching item" proposal (122 - you can vote on this at http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1228

What I am proposing here is creating a warning dialog box if you try to remove or swap out an item with a certain property. This would be easy to implement and help a lot of people with attachments, be they jetpacks, shields, collars, or wedding rings that they wish to always remain on.
Shields and wedding rings in particular are good examples - they're normally very small or invisible during normal viewing of your avatar, and you don't want to accidentally unwear them when you drag a folder of attachments onto your av to change av.

So, that's what I'm proposing.
It's a good idea becuase it helps people and requires only the addition of a dialog box confirmation and a property that scripts can set/unset on the objects they're in when those objects are attached to an av.

That, above, is my proposal. A convenience feature for pretty much everyone who changes avs a lot.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Check with another avatar before allowing wearer to detach item" proposal (1229) - you can vote for this at http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1229

Here's a different, stronger proposal geared more towards BDSM folk.

* Create a property called 'keyholder' which, when set on an object an av is wearing, takes a comma-seperated list of avatar names as a string.
* Attempting to detach this object while this property is set lets you pick one of these names from the list, and then sends them a request to unlock the item. If they approve, the property is unset. If they don't, it isn't. If they're not online at the time, the request is saved for them and sent to them when they next come online.
* This would let a script in a worm item lock the item so only some other avs could let the wearer remove it.
* This would be very, very useful for the adult chars in SL, such as all the people who RP Gorean slaves - which there are many - check the most visited places list in SL - you'll see Gorean, for example, sims rank quite highly.
* For security, the item's wearer should be presented with a dialog box asking their permission whenever a script wants to change its keyholder property, and explaining how their freedom would be removed and transferred to the avatars listed if they clicked 'yes'. This would ensure this feature can only be used with the player's full consent.
* There should be an option to *destroy* an item which has a keyholder property and is attached to the av. This option should only be availible to the avatar wearing the item, should permenantly delete the item, and should send an IM to everyone in the keyholder property letting them know the item was destroyed. This would allow for people to later change their minds, and keep consent fully informed and withdrawable at any time.

This idea in the paragraph just above this and below the ----s is NOT something I'm suggesting atm - but if this proposal of 'locking' (read: prompt-before-remove) items passes, I might suggest it... because it'd be fun to have. Lindens, if you're reading this, then please, support locking of items attached to avs in SL - you know there are a lot of people who'd gain from the prompt-before-remove option, and you also know there are a lot of people (just count the number of Gorean sims!) who'd like more fully-featured item locking in SL.

This proposal is a good idea becuase it helps draw kinky folk into SL, and lets face it, kinky/adult activities are a major draw in SL, and is in fact why many of us are here. Thus, LL should support this large portion of the community by adding a few features, like this one, which we'd really enjoy.

------------------------------------------------------------

If Linden labs can only implement one of these two proposals, implement the milder one (check-with-wearer-before-removing-item) at http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1228, as the first one is useful to more people then the second one is, and accomplishes much that the BDSMers would enjoy anyway. If you have copious free time though, please also consider the second one (the check-with-another-avatar-before-allowing-wearer-to-remove-item proposal), at http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1229.

This IS done, actually. But only when you attach something that's on the ground rezzed in-world, not from inventory.

EVERY attachment point should have a "2" attachment point, like "Center 2" in the HUD.

Then youcould put your tail or whatever else that's supposed to always be there on the "Spine 2" or "Pelvis 2" point.

In addition, it would be nice if the "2" points were considered a "separate set" so when you dragged a folder onto your avatar it would leave any "2" points in place unless the folder contained any objects on "2" points.

1228 now has over 160 votes,
1229 now has over 330 votes.

Lindens, there are a lot of people who clearly want these features, and many more who would vote for these things if they were aware of the the secondlife.com/vote system.

There has been some discussion about this - in 1229, it was suggested that having the option to destroy the item when one can't unlock it is not a good way to ensure consent. There are a lack of alternatives however, clearly there must be some mechanism to preserve wearer consent, and the other options weren't as good. Them paying a fee to LL, for example, won't work due to the disparity of wealth in SL - there would be no fair level to set the fee which discouraged but was affordable to all. So we decided to stick with that.

So yeah, please support these proposals - they are indeed (as popular support indicates) well liked and useful ideas.

Lindens - wondering how to implement these proposals with minimum hassle, now that they have over 500 votes between them?

1228 :
* Use the existing 'locked' property (which objects in world use to protect against edits), as the property which, if set on an attachment, forces the SL client to prompt the wearer before detaching/dropping/deleting the attachment.
Steps to impliment :
* Allow the locked property to be set on objects via scripts, and for scripts to check if the locked property is set on an object.
* Modify the existing SL UI to check for the locked property being set, and, if it is, to prompt before removing the attachment.

This proposal 1228 would be generally useful to many people (those with shields, wedding rings, etc etc etc), and only require the absolute minimum of implimentation on your part - so, please implement it!

1229 :
* A property called 'keyholder', formatted it to contain a comma seperated list of avs, which can only be changed if the wearer oks a dialog box approving the change, and when set on an attachment, does not allow the wearer to detach/drop/return_to_inventory the attachment with it set unless they have the permission of one of the avs listed in the property.
* As regards to getting permission, you could either craft a new interface to do this as detailed in the original proposal, or you could make use of the existing system of "grant modify rights" from the 'friends' panel - to remove an object with a keyholder string, you have to have someone listed in the string having given you permission to by 'grant modify rights' on their objects to your char.

This would accomplish everything in prop 1229 (truly lockable items) - without requiring you to do any more then:
* impliment the property, and scripting ways to set and delete it, which prompt the wearing av for accepting/declining changes before they are allowed
* impliment a way of checking against the 'grant modify rights' permissions of people listed in it when an av attempts to unwear/drop an attachment with that property.

To make it clear, In summary, I'm changing the proposal 1229 to make it less work for LL to put into practice.

With regard to proposal 1229, it's been raised that this proposal is implementing a feature for a minority group, and that this feature would allow griefing via "trojan" objects.
To the first point, I'd say that while BDSM players are a minority group in SL, they are a very substantial minority group (one very serious BDSM group, for example, owns at least one of the top 18 locations in SL), and this proposal too has other benefits, such as allowing the sale of 'one time only' use objects, via an object that cannot be unworn, and so much be deleted after a single use.
To the second point, the twin mechanisms of requiring wearer permission to approve any change in the keyholder property and the wearer being able to delete the attached and locked items at any time protect against griefing, especially if, for items with a keyholder property, 'drop', 'detach' and 'edit' were all replaced by 'delete'. It'd be easy to get rid of them if they were unwanted.

Thus, while primarily for BDSM players, it could also have some economic use (allows the selling of single-use wearables), and is designed so that it cannot be abused by griefers. So, please consider it

I like the 1229 idea, as a friend recently started figuring out a way to rent out avatars.
Not sure how he does it, but I think that the "one use" property of the lock would be another way to rent avatars/av pats/clothing.
Renting would create a whole economy of "Costume Shops."

Let's face it...SL slavery exists this feature will make it more realistic. There are many of us (slaves) who crave more realism and want to discourage the less serious from simple slave "tourism".

I'm not sure exactly how LL feels about empowering a slave trade in SL, but i certainly want the system to accomodate willing and consenting adults. Please vote for this.

#1229 makes sense for stuff other than BDSM.

Among other things, you could lock a HUD attachment, so the user would have to delete it when they were done with it. Not as good as having an attachment able to delete *itself*, but the two in combination would finally allow "vehicle-based HUD attachments" to work properly.

I'm gonna go add some votes.

Current vote progress :
Proposal 1228 : 186 votes
Proposal 1229 : 400 votes!

Proposal 1229 (the proposal for locks the avatar can't remove) is getting very close to the 500 vote threshold at which point LL should respond to it (going by previous votes, see /13/aa/104191/1.html for details).

People are voting for it because there are a LOT of people who appreciate the opportunities it offers - to have single-use attachments (opening whole new markets in terms of rented costumes, for example) and to support the large community of paying residents in Second Life (as shown by the votes) who want this feature.

Please vote for 1229, so that it can get as far over the 500 vote threshold as possible, and we have the best chance of getting LL to take notice of it. Note also that the proposal itself has been slightly changed (as I posted above) from what appears on the actual proposal. I am no longer going to ask LL to write a UI for requesting permission from other avs to remove locked items - instead, I think it should be based on the existing system of granting permissions to other avs to modify your objects - see above for details.

Lastly, not that the sooner we get this proposal over 500 votes, the sooner LL will have to respond to it, and the sooner we get our votes returned to the pool to vote on other proposals (like the other good ones I have been linking to here and in other topics).

Current vote progress :
Proposal 1228 : 210 votes
Proposal 1229 : 506 votes!

Now, hopefully, we'll get a reponse from Linden Labs about this

Thank you everyone who voted! Remember though, the more votes we can get over 500, the more likely LL will be to take notice. Thus, keep getting people to vote... and we have more chance of success.

On a side-note, I wonder if it's possible to make a living in SL as a "lobbyist". There are a few other worthy causes I'd like to help out too, reforming the voting system for a start, and beyond that, finding some way to help out LL (I'm aware that they have a lot on their hands, and thus, if I help them out, not only is it morally good, but it also means that they have more time to spend working on making SL better).

I am absolutely opposed to proposal 1229.

I was dealing a few weeks ago with an urban myth that had gone around, apparently spread by entirely disreputable, exploitative types - I wouldn't associate them with the wider BDSM community as that would be an insult - that there were "non-unlockable collars" which could trap one entirely against one's will and were unremovable, with the only recourse being to create a new SL identity.

This proposal does not quite put that into practice but it is one step towards it. Enough people seem to have believed the original myth to seriously worry me, and somebody could easily not be told about whatever delete function is being suggested. Not that I think there is a serious chance that it will ever be adopted, but this is not appropriate stuff at all. If someone is engaging in a consensual BDSM relationship all they have to do is not remove the attachment.

1228 seems fine, some attachments you really don't want to remove by accident.

I think 1228 and 1229 are much needed additions to SL. They will have tremendous benefit in a variety of both mature and non-mature areas. I recognize there are concerns by some about adding a level of non-consent to the world but 1229 maintains ultimately a level of consent that is necessary and probably appropriate. I'd have proposed maybe 'returning' the object to it's owner instead of deletion, but can see options there either way. The point though is to make it possible to make it 'hard' to remove something, while not impossible.

This is a very good idea. I hope it can be implemented. Ideally both the self-controlling one with universal benefit and the other-controlling version which would be great both for a bit more immersion in certain settings and for things like one-use objects.

1229 is just asking for griefers to abuse it.

Though it might be fun to set up a prim in a combat sandbox selling "free sim-killer guns, wear this and you're unstoppable (accept the lock, it's needed for the hack)". and grief a few griefers.

(no, I wouldn't do it, but you see the problem)

Really, I think people are being overly alarmist about the abuse potential of these proposals.

I'll deal with Ordinal Malaprop's concerns first, then, after that, show why these proposals are not as abusable as people think.


I appreciate your concern for people, but you should know, that under 1228, the 'detach' and 'drop' options would still be there, and people would just have to click 'yes' on a dialog to confirm detaching the object. Under 1229, the 'detach' and 'drop' options in the pie menu would be replaced by 'delete' options (hopefully with a little text in the middle of the pie menu saying 'locked object' or something, so they can see at a glance why the options on the pie menu have changed).
So, since the delete options will appear in exactly the same place as the 'drop' and 'detach' options used to be, everyone will be aware of them and they will be impossible to hide. Anyone who has used 'drop' and 'detach' before will be able to find the delete options without having to learn anything new.



That is true, but there are problem cases, such as :
A) accidental removals, which do happen quite a bit, especially with people who switch av a lot, or have lots of attachments which conflict over attachment points... I'd personally love to see a "attachment X is locked on place Y, are you sure you wish to replace it with attachment Z from your inventory?" - something similar is done when you wear objects from the ground, but it'd be nice to be able to lock all attachments and get notified if something tries to replace them, even if you're putting items from inventory on your av.
B) people who want to give up more control they they currently can in SL... especially, people who want to *play* with the idea of locking items which it is hard to remove (thus making them strong enough to have more of an effect then they do now) but without completely taking away all ability to resist from the wearer (which is what scares many people about RL bondage). It's a compromise - enough support for locking that BDSMers can have more fun if they want to, but with clear safeguards to prevent abuse.



You're right, 1228 can be useful to lots of people, but so can 1229.
Some people would use 1229 to make single-use items a reality, thus opening whole new markets and letting consumers try items before buying them proper. More details on this will be put later in this post, but, suffice it to say, 1229 is useful to many people, just as 1228 is.


-------

Ok, now the fears are allayed, lets examine what would *actually* happen if someone gave you an abusive object and got you to wear it, and it used all the proposed features in 1228 or 1229 to try to keep itself attached to you.

If they gave it to you and it locked on your av as described in 1228, then all that would change is that when you clicked 'detach', or 'drop', you'd get an "This object is locked. Are you sure you want to remove it anyway?" dialog. Then you'd just click 'yes' and it'd go away. Simple. Easy. Painless.


If it locked as in 1229, then all that would change is instead of getting a 'drop' and 'detach' options, you'd get a 'delete' option in its place. Click that, a dialog pops up that says "This object is locked, and cannot be detached, only deleted. Are you sure you wish to permenantly delete this object?". Click 'yes', and it's gone. Again, simple, easy, and painless deletion of abusive objects.


At worst, all these proposals do is make people take two clicks to remove an object rather then one! That is not a signifigant increase in the abuse potential for scripted objects. Heck, if the default was 'yes', then all you'd need to do to remove a locked object is to do what you do now, then hit return/enter when the dialog popped up! You wouldn't even have to read it.
Put simply, if someone truly wanted to remove an object under either of these proposals, they could do it in seconds.

These proposals are intentionally crafted so that they assume the object is *valuable* to the wearer before the lock will work. If the wearer doesn't want the object at all, they can, at any time, forcibly delete/remove it. I proposed it this way so that objects that people find valuable will have meaningful locking (remember, they have to get the wearer's permission first, and the wearer can always say no).... but if at any time the wearer doesn't want the object, they can easily remove or delete it.

The only new abuse potential with these proposals is that some crafty businesses might make their attachments locking only and not tell their customers, effectively making their products self destruct after one use. Of course, this is just one new way that businesses can screw over consumers in SL... and it can be dealt with using conventional methods such as contacting the Lindens and reporting it, or simply spreading word around the community to boycott their products.

Honestly, I think that this proposal will actually be good for consumers generally in SL - it would enable some companies to sell a 'one time use' version of their product, which would enable a 'try before you buy' system for some products in SL.
This would be economically a very good thing for SL (consumers spend more money when they can try the product first for a low cost), and a very good thing for consumers (they can avoid paying lots of money for bad products, simply by buying a one-use trial version first, and testing it themselves).

Really, I think that these proposals will not make it any easier to abuse/grief in SL.
Ok, they make removing some items take 2 seconds rather then 1, but that's such a small change that I think once residents learn about it, they'll have their finger on the return key when they hit 'delete' and if they get bad object it'll be consigned to the void faster then I can say the word 'garbage'.
Ok, these proposals make it technically possible for companies to sell attachments which are good for one use only, but really, I strongly suspect that this will work out to be better for consumers in the long run, becuase it will enable 'try before you buy' schemes and existing boycott/reporting features are quite good at combatting bad companies in SL already.

So, in summary, I considered abuse potential when designing these proposals - and designed them so they aren't useful for griefing, but are useful for residents. So, I'd still urge you to support them

Heck, I'd be happy to 'lock' attachements on myself because I _hate_ the fact that an item you say to wear can attach itself to an attachment point removing the previous attachment without warning. I've lost track of the number of times my head disappears because some other attachement was defaulted there.. same deal with box on head syndrome ring any bells to anyone?

I have certain attachments I _want_ locked in place, or at least give me a warning before something else attaches itself to a point already used. Now granted, this would be a pain in the butt for people that change avies regularly, but if there was an object based option to lock specific attachments (say like make use of the current 'lock' object option) I certainly would use it.

Current vote progress :
Proposal 1228 : 214 votes
Proposal 1229 : 629 votes!

Going well guys
I think eventually, LL will have to respond to this, given the sheer number of votes these proposals have between them.

I'd have to say that I am dead set against 1229 as well. This is one of the times that I wish that it were possible to vote *against* proposals. I'm all in favor of the ability to lock an attachment so that it's asks you for permission before, for example, replacing your hair with a box on the head.

But a proposal that requires making a choice between getting the approval of another person to remove an attachment, or which requires the destruction of a valuable object, (An Amethyst collar for instance, costs L$600.) *and* which then notifies a list of people of that destruction, has the effect of making it more difficult for someone to say, "Hey, I don't want to play master and servant anymore," and simply walk away with a minimum of drama and confrontation.

As it is, the better collars can *already* be set to inform someone if they're removed, I'm totally against changing the mechanics of SL itself to allow a more coercive form of BDSM play.


If this is actually implemented, I *will* contact the mainstream media, (Which seems to be *quite* interested in SL these days.) and do my best to make them aware of how SecondLife is being turned into a game focused on internet sex and BDSM, and I will urge anyone else who thinks that this proposal is a bad idea, to join me in doing the same.

And many of us will then contact the mainstream media to ridicule your accusations, as there are tons of uses for single-use objects that have nothing to do with BDSM. I'm in favor of this simply because it has the sort of support that a more esoteric suggestion (like llDie on attachments) cannot gather - and I *really* want it for vehicle HUD's. A HUD should appear when you get into the craft, and vanish when you stand up, functionality that is almost impossible in the current system (the closest you can get is having a hud become invisible when you stand up, and become visible again when you get back in, which stays attached to you anyway).

Oh wow, driving a car or spaceship is coercive BDSM play. Hehe.