Locking Attachments on Avatars

So why the need for a feature to notify a list of people when the object is detached and destroyed if this is intended for single use objects?

I've made my statment, and I stand by it. Built in BDSM tools have no place in SL. If you want to play Socio., it's thataway.

Sorry, this was a bit unclear.
My intention here is to *allow* objects to notify people when they're destroyed, and to *suggest* that it *should* be used.... *not* to make it somehow required that all objects which are locked and deleted while locked send an IM to everyone in their keyholder property to notify them.

The reasoning for this is simple :
1) I want to allow that some people make items which do notify their keyholders upon deletion (most collars, for example, would probably have a 'notify upon delete' option).
2) I want to allow that forcing all deleted objects to IM their keyholders on deletion would get very spammy, for example, for the makers of one-time-use-only rented costumes. Imagine getting one IM for part of the costume attached to a customer, when it was removed...

Therefore, we should *allow* an on_delete() or something similar event which is called for locked objects being deleted, and thus ALLOWS the sending of IMs to people in the keyholder property.... but which does not *require* this sending.

The key point here: proposal 1229 helps out both people making single-use objects and also people wanting to BDSM play.... by being flexible enough to accomodate both by giving each the freedom to use just the features they want.



Socio is NOT like SL in several important ways.... SL has better graphics, is 3D, has a vastly superior economic system, more players, etc etc etc. I doubt others would be impressed if, when someone suggested the ability to, for example, jump, I said "if you want to play Mario, it's thataway", or if someone suggested the ability to teleport, and I said "if you want to play Star Trek, it's thataway".
Just becuase a feature exists in other games is no reason not to have it here, especially if the feature is useful, which this is, and its implementation would be different and more useful here then it is in other games (e.g. there is a much greater economic use for this feature in SL to make one-use costumes, etc).


As has been pointed out, these tools are not just for BDSMers.... they open new markets (rented costumes, for example, and a huge number of 'try before you buy' schemes). If these proposals would ONLY benefit BDSMers, I would have seriously reconsidered proposing them at all. I'm aware of my duty to act in a way that makes SL *as a whole* better. This isn't just a narrow proposal just for BDSMers.


You raise a very good point about how much it would cost to, say, destroy an Amethyst collar. I don't think it is a bad thing, though, because :

1) Being faced with the possibility of losing a collar, for example, would make people think twice about if they choose to allow locks like this to bet set on them in the first place, especially if such locks were accompanied with a warning text in the confirmation dialog. It encourages people to THINK before they accept locks, which is a good idea becuase it promotes responsible choices, thinking in the long term, and, of course, an awareness of risks.

2) If people are not cautious enough, and do let themselves be locked into things that they then want to take off, IMHO, destroying the object is a good way to remind them not to make the same mistake again, to be more careful and choosy with who they allow to lock objects on them.

3) There is one very easy solution to the problem of expensive collars .... the person who wants to put the collar on someone else should give them the money to buy the collar. That way, if the wearer later decides they want to dissolve the relationship, they can, and it is the master, the purchaser of the collar, who loses the money he paid for the collar... unless he trusts the wearer enough to unlock the collar, and they trust him enough to return it. This lock system means that, in trusting relationships, there is no financial loss to either side even if the relationship is dissolved (the collarer gets the collar back intact), and, if the wearer wishes to, they can remove the collar at any time without losing any money, becuase they did not pay for the collar in the first place. People aren't stupid. If locking was such you had to destroy the locked item to remove it (like in RL) you can bet that people who wanted to wear bondage items would start insisting their partners buy them, so if they later decided they did not want to wear them, and their partner refused to unlock them, they could destroy them at no cost.

Put simply, as long as point #3 above is adhered to, I don't see any abuse potential for this feature, and I think that point #3 above would become common practice after locks were implemented.

In summary :
1228 is safe, becuase I just can't see any real abuse potential for it.
1229 has only very limited abuse potential, and even that small potential can be removed if a very simple social rule (which many follow already) is followed.

If you're not convinced 1229 is a good idea, that's fine Vote for 1228 instead.

I'm not out to make converts out of everyone - I'm just trying to get a feature enabled for the substantial portion of people who badly want it..... and other people can use it or not at their choice.

In my own opinion, nothing says tolerance for other peoples interests and wishes like threatening to go 'tattle' on something you don't like. This proposal requires voluntary consent to wear any such object, and has a clear means to escape such an object.

Why the heart burn over letting someone do what they want inside SL? There are numerous examples of non-BDSM uses for these proposals listed in the discussion thread that could spawn new buisnesses, and there are some people in the BDSM community that want this for their own interests too. So why the heartache? What skin is it off your back?

This is a serious question, and I'm curious to hear an explanation for why this is such an unacceptable idea, rather than threatening to go 'tattle' if something you don't like happens. Try to convince if there's logic behind your dislike of this, and maybe you'll sway people. Threaten and it only convinces me you don't have a sufficiently valid argument to sway people to your point of view, and thus need to threaten to get your way.

Firstly...when it comes to "Going to Tattle"...sorry, but I never bought into the cover-up via peer pressure that the idea of "don't be a tattle-tale" implied. If I have a problem with something, I'm going to say so, and say it wherever I think that it will do the most good.

Secondly, take a look at my in-game profile. This is *not* a simple anti-BDSM thing, I hold the views that I do for what I feel are legitimate reasons.

The major one is that I know that relationships of any sort can go badly, they can turn mentally or emotionally abusive, etc., where the best thing is to simply walk away from them. The reason why I am against this proposal is that it's a way of making it harder for someone to simply walk away that's *coded into the game*.

A good collar will already send a message to a preselected individual if it's removed. Which makes one feature that doesn't need to be coded into the game. The ability for the user to lock an attachment so that it can't be accidentally bumped off substituting ones hair or collar for a box on the head *is* a good one and would prevent the accidental removal of a collar, but that's covered in the other, simpler proposal.

As for building in a system that requires both notification of a *list* of people, *and* that an object that has to be destroyed to get rid of it and the control that it can exercise over another individual...that's a problem, particularly since a good collar is so expensive. (And is usually a gift from the person doing the collaring.) This makes it impossible for someone who has discovered that they're in a situation that they don't want to be in to simply do what can be done now. That is to take off the collar, return it, and walk away.

Instead they have to destroy what was likely an expensive gift, in a move that will inform a list of parties who they may also no longer wish to be involved with, or to avoid destroying this expensive gift, (Akin, IRL, to having to destroy a weeding ring in order to get away from one's spouse.) they have to go to the party who locked that controlling attachment on them, and *request* that they remove it.

If this does go through, I *know* that I'll be running into slaves and subs telling me sob stories about how they'd like to leave their current Master/Mistress, but that s/he won't agree to remove their collar, and they don't have the $L600 it would take to pay them for the cost of the collar they'd have to destroy to get free.

I'm sure that this would make some people's BDSM role-play more exciting, but it is also going to make it a lot harder for some poor newbie who didn't realize what they were getting into to walk away from what they might consider a bad situation. (And which could actually *be* a bad situation.)

And saying that something like this is strictly voluntary reminds me of the Christian fundamentalist idea some years back of giving people an option when they first got married of the standard "divorce on demand" marriage, or a "till death do us part" marriage. Everyone *thinks* that things are going to work out, no one plans for a relationship to turn out bad, either IRL or in SL. But it happens none the less.

Role-Play all you like, but I think that coding this sort of thing into the fabric of SL itself is a bad idea. I think that everyone should have the right to say, "I don't wanna. Here's your stuff back, good-bye," without any complications.

I never bought into bending over to bullying, which I think is never good. Threatening to go protest in a fashion not within the SL community but taking it outside to try and get your way on an issue you have concerns about is, imo, bullying. You are welcome to never buy into peer pressure, but there's a country mile of difference between protesting and trying to kick the sand out of the sandbox when you don't like what someone else is building within it. I don't have any issue with you having heartfelt disagreement with something. But I do think your threat (that IS what it was) is uncalled for.

Yes, relationships can go bad. So what? Let me try and address your specific critiques, ignoring the fact that I detest your threat attached to your critique.

1) Currently if someone is in a relationship that has developed into a partnership here, it takes *real world money* to break that apart. That's a heck of a lot more oppresive than what this proposal would *add* to the game.

2) You mention that a good collar already informs someone if it is removed. So this proposal can't be bashed for having that in code, since it's already possible in the game.
A good collar will already send a message to a preselected individual if it's removed. So your only disagreement with this part is that you don't want it as a coded feature

What is wrong with adding to code something that people are using in-game?

3) You critique that having the *ability* to have an object that can only be removed via it's destruction is oppresive, or too much. But you make claims that are not fair.



Today, in most cases you can never return a collar. Thanks to the no-transfer code, already part of the game, most items that are gifts of this sort can't be returned anyways. So it's unfair to use *that* as an argument against this proposal.

As for making it impossible to walk away, how in the heck do you get to that? Built right into this is an ability to always walk away, by permanently removing the offending item. It costs them nothing to do so, no $L, no real world $ (like with Partnerships). So what's the problem? That they can't hand the collar back? In many cases you can't do that today.



Most wedding rings don't cost <$3.86 yet $1000L can be bought for a price around that range. You are saying that throwing away $3.86 of a gift someone else gave you is equivalent to throwing out a $1000+ wedding band. Right. With this proposal, they always have a choice. Ask permission to have the item removed *or* remove it. That choice is always there. And I hardly think a few dollars is obscenely oppresive.



No matter what Linden does, there will always be people who whine about whatever happens. So getting a few people complaining to you means you should try to kick over the sandbox if a decision you don't like is made?

As for the sub/slave paying, where does it say they have to? There is no part of the proposal that puts any financial burden on them at all. Only the doms would have any possibility of cost borne out by this, should they wind up slapping things on people willy nilly. Your complaint here is what, exactly?



So making them click twice to get out of a bad situation is ruthlessly abhorrent, why? If someone buys me a dress and I leave them later, they're out the $ for the dress, yes? That's life. So it should be impossible for me to do that to someone? This whole line of your argument does not seem sound to me. It's all emotion and no logic.



So those in favor of this are just as evil as Christian fundementalists. Gotcha. Even though there is nothing in this proposal requiring anything more than a choice to click twice. No death. No permanence. No character deletion. Sounds just like "till death do us part marriage" to me. (And way to go, bonus points for coming up with an easy kicking group for your analogy. I can't wait to hear who else you'd like to compare anyone who likes this idea to.)

I would agree with you that having no outs in SL would be bad. But you are using strawman arguments and false analogies. Your critique is passionate, but baseless. Sorry, no sale.

If you've got more rationale that isn't baseless, I really would like to hear it. I'll gladly withdraw my votes and voice agreement that this is a bad idea if you give me an argument that is sound. And I'll continue to detest your threat and bullying if that's what you see as the way to get your way in this. So far the only 'cost' I've heard of this proposal to your own nose would be the potential for a few more people to complain to you. Sorry if I'm not sympathetic to that.

You asked for my reasoning, saying that you were generally interested and I gave it to you, honestly and sincerly in an attempt at good will.

I'm sorry that you couldn't see your way clear to reciprocate on that last part. However, since you can't, and since we're not likely to change each other's mind at this point, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.

Equating those who support the propsal to 'fundamentalist Christians' (clearly the dominant threat to the world) is rude. Just like threatening to go sic the press on Linden should they dare to do what you disagree with.

I'm glad to listen to argument. Dump the invective and give me a valid argument rather than strawmen and I'll gladly consider it. I read through your post about a dozen times before replying, and simply can't see it as having any validity. I've made specific critisisms of your viewpoint which I think are valid. You're welcome to counter-argue or to simply claim I'm the one who's not listening and therefore you won't bother to argue your point.

Addendum: (left the original reply and added this)
After a bit of time away and reading again, I'll say my reply fairly hard-edged. Despite being offended by a lot of the tone of Jack's post, I should try to take a deep breath and answer it more politely.

What I will say is that I think a lot of the arguments used were simply wrong, and the specific arguments used and inclusion of what I think is fairly called invective was not 'good will'. (Examples: 1) Never bought into the cover-up. - As if I am trying to support some unfair cospiracy towards silence. 2) 'reminds me of the Christian fundamentalist' - Which ties any argument made in favor of this to something viewed (by some) as something despicable and wrong-headed. It's increasingly the modern day equivalent to Godwin's Law in some senses, it's not rational discourse but equating the argument of someone else to something not worthy of consideration. To me, that's not 'good will' at all.

To Jack:
Though I understand you feel strongly, you included numerous choices of phrase and comparison that I find offensive, not by means of direct comparison but by how they are not germain to the debate but meant to derail or 'tar' the argument of those disagreeing with you. But I think too my reply included specific detailed criticism of the weakness of your argument. I do welcome debate, and if you have specific rebuttal to my comments I'm glad to hear it.

I think your original threat, still not withdrawn or acknowledged when called upon it is inappropriate and wrong. You are likely free to do whatever thing you choose to do, but I'll protest your choice vocally and vehemently.

Thanks for rebutting the self-righeous arguments put forth by Jack Harker. Evidently he feels that he has been appointed SL guardian, conscience and moral arbitar. I wonder who made this appointment.

Jack...if you don't like a 1229 type collar, don't put one on. And don't feel the terrible burden of being the advocate of 1229 victims.

Bug off Jack.

Aston Martin

I am very much into the TPE aspect of D/s, but I have found a number of people who use Gor as a way to strip away the rights of women solely for their own personal gain. This includes taking their land, their money, and in many cases extends to real life. Because Gor is so prevalent many new to submissive concepts find themselves in Gor as their first exposure. This can have devastating consequences. I personally know of many women who have been harassed and abused into giving up not just ingame items, but personal information such as name, phone numbers, addresses, and account passwords. Many are also pressured to perform various acts on camera, and in some cases blackmailed when they try to leave these predators that claim to be Masters, when in fact are nothing more than spineless insecure rodents that have no regard for the people they abuse.

The problem is that Gor by definition is not consensual as far as slavery goes. Many women are force collared the moment they step foot on a sim. I know of one guy who waits at the landing zone for unsuspecting victims to arrive, and baits them to leave before they read the rules so that he can collar them elsewhere according to his own unwritten rules (filed multiple abuse reports against him). As one predator put it to me "They are sheep, and when I want to I swoop in and take what I want". This is the same man who described in detail to a dear friend of mine how he would meet her at her work location and rape her in real life (also filed multiple reports against this guy).

Many submissive women have a problem saying "no", and thus their inability to effectively communicate is taken as consent. For people that are good at manipulation, such as predators, this is the equivalent of taking candy from a baby. Often times these predators present themselves as nice strong men. Before a woman has a chance to see what lies beneath she is caught. If I walk up to a woman on the street and say "Hey, you are mine or I will kill you!" how is she giving her consent?? This is not any sane form of D/s or BDSM. It's predation!! Many women come on SL and into Gor to have a chance to roleplay something they may not be able to in their real lives. In many cases they become prisoners of this virtual reality. I can tell you way too many stories of victimization that has taken place, much of it extending into real life and some of it horribly graphic. This is the result of people using Gorean sims to extend beyond the bounds of in-sim roleplay to outside of sim, outside of Gor, outside of SL, outside of online in general, and many times into real life.

Sorry, but proposal #1229 is a terrible idea in the context of how it would be used by many, especially those predators that hunt the Gorean landscape looking for "sheep". Please do not give people like this more tools they can use to harm women. I am very much into healthy Master/slave relationships, but such relationships are based on mutual trust and respect, not on force and intimidation. Only those that are weak and insecure need such devices around a slave's neck. One that is Mastered properly will beg to be at your feet and will have no desire to remove her collar. If you really think such devices are necessary, then I pity you for your inadequacy as a Master, and perhaps it is you who should wear the collar.

To keep my replies short, I'm going to reply to what I feel are crucial points made since my last post. I'm also not going to comment on individuals at all - I feel it is more productive to debate the ideas here without getting personal.


1229 would not *REQUIRE* the notification of a list of people, it would simply *ALLOW* it. The attachment would have to be intentionally scripted to use this feature, it would not be automatic, I have explained this in my previous post. I wrote 'should' (as in 'should send an IM') in 1229's actual text, and I admit this was a mistake, the wording ought to have been 'could'.



Some people may spend money on items that are then locked on them, and thus be faced with the choice of remaining in that control, or of deleting the item. That's the choice they got when they signed up, and ok, there is a small cost to changing your mind, but really, 600L$ is about 2USD, not a huge amount of money at all. If this happened, the slaves/subs concerned could probably make that back in donations they got from their friends who felt sorry for them. The maximum amount of bondage gear I can see an av wearing would be valued at about 2,000L$... and I'm tempted to say that if someone is going to spend 2,000L$ on locking bondage gear in SL, then they probably want to be restrained *very* badly, and if they ignore the warning signs and lose their gear as a result then I'm not sure they have anyone but themselves to blame. I might also add, that making a mistake like this of trusting someone to lock you into bondage gear you can't remove in SL is MUCH less nasty then it is in RL. Giving people a short, sharp shock of how they really can lose at least a little bit of their freedom through bondage items, might make them reconsider if they really want to do bondage play.

Personally, in order for this argument (that it'd leave some submissives out of pocket) against 1229 to succede, it seems to me that we must give evidence that :
1) there are many poor submissives in SL
AND 2) they would not be able to insist that their collarer buy their collar
AND 3) they would not be able to insist that their collarer pay them the cost of the collar before they would grant them the permission to lock it.
AND 4) we think that having to accept the deletion of bondage gear you may have paid 400L$-2000L$ for in order to regain control you previously chose to give away is a bad thing, not a valuable lesson.
AND 5) we think everyone should be unable to make this choice, in order to stop a few people from making this wrong choice.

I think 1 is definately true, 2 and 3 may be true, 4 is doubtful, and 5 is very doubtful. Hence I do not accept this argument right now, but might if more support was advanced for 5, and to a lesser extent, 3 and 4.
IMHO it would be hard to justify saying that they did not make a choice to enter into this agreement when,in order to do it, they had to accept a dialog like this :

This is exactly the point. There are NOT a lot of people who want this. Compared to other proposals as of today the proposals with comparable vote counts are

Prop 140: 659 votes, 200 voters, Added: 2005-04-14
Angel Fluffys Proposal 1229: 652 voters, 96 voters, Added: 2006-04-07
Prop 49: 610 votes, 280 voters, Added: 2005-04-13
Prop 20: 578 votes 234 voters, Added: 2005-04-13

So nearly all comparable proposals have nearly twice the count of voters. I would say a limited number of people wants to enforce their wish and NOT a lot of people are interested.



I don't see any market where single-use of objects exists and works except of try before buy. And no, a costume/object for single-use is NOT a rented costume. A rent in general terms is based on time and not on single use. I personally don't like the term locking for a feature proposal that is intended to be used once and offer renting capabilities. Furthermore I don't see a reason to give a content creator ANY SCRIPTED POWER by lsl to limit an avatar controller to get rid of some software as he has suggested as long as the actual functionality of the script can not seen easily from the outside and is not understandable by everyone if it can be seen.

Only a one-time-use attribute not controlled by scripting and stated clearly in the object permission list *can* be useful.
But as long as there is no term of conduct by content creators to state clearly what the permissions and attributes of their creations before buying them actually are, what data, control, information is passed to someone else and the state according to community standards (see buyers beware here: http://secondlife.com/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Community+Standards
) that the position of consumers is already weak, to further weaken the position of those who buy things is in my eyes not the way to go.

Scripted objects should be treated like software and I as the owner and wearer shouldn't be limited in the ability to get rid of a creation in case of malfunctioning. Therefore both proposals introduce more not influencable power over an avatar and it's controller. And software as such should be rather give the user more power. Both suggestions therefore suck by design.



So Angel Fluffy has mislead people a long time on what he pretends to propose and what he actually proposes. I first read the posting and not the proposal as I assumed both where the same. Now I here something different. To manipulate something afterwards and fool other people by not stating as soon as possible is not the a behaviour I think is good for a proposal or furthermore in general.

This sounds to me as a violation of TOS according to
4.1. (ii)
falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity.



In fact, as one might notice the Added date in the above proposal listing, this more like a blitzkrieg proposal.
According to the community standard I feel about this like "Harassment Given the myriad capabilities of Second Life, harassment can take many forms. Communicating or behaving in a manner which is offensively coarse, intimidating or threatening ... or is otherwise likely to cause annoyance or alarm is Harassment." and furthermore a

"Global Attacks
Community Standards violations which broadly interfere with or disrupt the Second Life community"

Of course this is a bit over done by me. But a rush of a subgroup to gain more possible power over any avatar or any controller severly alarms me.

This likely organized group of quick and loud screamers to get their wishes quickly and completely is in my eyes not a good appearance of this group. But probably this is due to the fact of the impulsive nature of them and the group Angel Fluffy is actually lobying for.



Dropping in, posting a proposal of not-really-working-as-suggested-and-as-pretended and calling all those who are interested in more power over others to vote is in my eyes NOT A DIPLOMATIC WAY to achieve something in the sl community.



I am sure his career as lobbyist will end before it has begun if he doesn't understand that "lobbyists" have to deal accordingly with the people who have the actual power. And if his appearance, his manipulation of actual vote facts, his misleading in the actual proposals and his actually not-as-suggested-working proposal are in my eyes not the way to go.

His argueing for their proposals and their actual proposals don't fit together. And I hope Lindens see that too that something stinks here.



If I take into account his appearance till here, I would say this sounds directly like a coming to power over other residents. If this is his nature than the sl community will have to deal with it. But if he goes over the line of TOS and CS than he will find himself warned or in the cornfield quickly. And a cornfield reputation doesn't sound good for a "lobbyist" to me.



At first hand he helps primarilly malware and wormware as he state d by himself in the proposal 1229:



According to TOS in 4.1
(v) take any actions or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content that contains any viruses, Trojan horses, worms, spyware, time bombs, cancelbots or other computer programming routines that are intended to damage, detrimentally interfere with, surreptitiously intercept or expropriate any system, data or personal information

So he states by himself that his proposals of gaining power of an avatar subsystem controlled by the account holder is not within the TOS.



As I pointed out his understanding of "morality" should be not that much worth for everyone with two open eyes.



His personal nature costs the people who are severly concerned here a lot of time to state their own opinion. His misleading announcments and manipulative appearance in this thread, as pointed out above, is a huge cause of harassment to me and, as you might have a look at the origninal, the orignial post was not that long and it took me significant time to pick his stuff into pieces and put it into the drawers according to TOS and CS and general terms. To me Angel Fluffy costs actually time.

I am not willing to give up any power over my avatar to content creators by *new* introduced features that suck already by proposal and will likely suck in the future.
And everyone with open eyes in sl will likely see that too.

In my eyes a good way how to deal with renting and how to improve the work of attachments is needed here. And not a "locking" feature that *pretends* something different and actually doesn't really work for some things as suggested by those who propose it(clothes, skins, shapes are not scripted).

And to state my own opinion, the whole trickery of Angel Fluffy with two different proposal sounds to me to get at least a bit of something by requesting more and already prepared for getting a sufficient minor proposal. And this whole approach sucks in my eyes.

Regards,
Leff.

Software is not malfunction free. And giving control over the user to software as intended by the creator should be avoided under all costs for this reason if the by the proponent suggested benefit is not really proven.
The only way to handle this is to allow the account holder of an avatar to *give* the ability to be sticky to an object as he wishes and to *take* this ability as well at all time and indepent of the object so that he/she is able to check proper functioning first.

This is the way how certain graphics environments are doing it. There windows can be made sticky and stay at the place where they are. Though this is not actually needed for their proper functionality.

If they need more immersiveness for certain gameplay why do they sell it under other general terms? Is the power over their certain companion players they already have by their laws and rules and what else not enough?
Probably not all "fans" of this certain gameplay are that much "fans". Increasing a barrier by a technology controlled by a third party to inforce them to stay should be rather handeled by your personal game play and not by technology.
In other words, if a thing is too ejecting for others so they wanna get rid of it, technology is called to ensure a person to stay where he/she is.

And in my eyes this is the case with both proposals. None of them gives a real good benefit that couldn't be done better without giving up control.

Regards,
Leff.

My goal is not to enforce my wishes on others. Really, so long as others do not harm me or those I care about, I don't not really interested in what other people do at all. I would simply like SL to enable some features, such as 1228, (or 1229 if the discussion shows that 1229 is reasonably safe and more useful), which let those of us do some things we could not do before, and which I've tried to design so that people cannot be affected by them unless they choose to be.



1) I personally, would dearly like the ability to buy single-use animation attachments, so I could try out a new 'hug' pose provided by an attachment once or twice, before spending the many hundred L to buy the unlimited version of the same product.
2) If content creators had to make all their script readable by end-users, no scripted products would ever be made.


You underestimate the power of the community to boycott bad companies.

1) Avatars have a choice. Nobody will ever force you to wear a locked object.
2) Even if you do choose to wear one, you can always get rid of it, if it malfunctions. Plus you can complain to the maker, organise a boycott, etc.
3) They do not introduce not-influencable (is that a word?) power over an avatar and its controller.
4) These features do empower people to do many things they couldn't do before... the single use pose attachment and other short term attachments like it above, for example, and many uses in BDSM play.

I made a mistake. I hate to break it to you, but I'm a human being too. I keep trying to remind people that I want the proposal changed afterwards, and try to correct people when they criticise that part of it. Please don't make it doubly painful by accusing me of being intentionally misleading when I wasn't, and have in fact apologised for any confusion caused, and repeatedly correct people since. I'm not trying to fool anyone. Heck, as my previous posts show, I'll happily abandon this proposal if I think it does more harm them good to SL as a whole, so you can't even accuse me of not considering the wider community before myself.

You completely miss the point.
We, the BDSM players, only want to use this with other BDSM players. We have no interest in trying to gain power over random avs we meet in Second Life. That is plain wrong, futile, and just plain not enjoyable for us.
Also, it hasn't just come out of thin air either. Several people I talked to wanted this, and so I proposed it, spread the word around, and let people vote as they saw fit - I even linked them here so they could post objections if they wanted. Heck, I even talked to strongly anti-abuse people to get their POV and tried to understand it, and did really take it on board. I think you're being too alarmist about this.

I'm good at organising groups of people to get things done. It's one of my skills. I must say I haven't put much effort into this project - I could easily have done more, but I stopped after talking to several people about possible abuse issues and I decided that I would cease promoting this as I have in the past, simply because I want to be SURE that it won't cause significant harm if implemented. I'm acting out of conscience here. Also, don't assume I'm lobbying for any particular group - since this idea came up I've talked to MANY people and groups about it. Nobody's paying me for this (either in L$, favours, or otherwise, as far as I'm aware).
Please don't assume I have a hidden agenda, or that we're a group of screamers demanding attention now... neither are true.


ALL the advertising I did for this proposal was in the BDSM community. I have never tried to get "all those who are interested in more power over others" involved.


You seem to misunderstand me quite badly. That's ok, I'm not perfect and I don't expect anyone else to be either, but I would ask you to consider why you feel the need to attack me personally... as opposed to suggesting why my ideas won't work?
I'm happy to discuss the ideas and change or even drop them if I find significant problems with them.

1228 fits fine.
1229 has been slightly altered in two ways since its proposal :
1) use of the 'allow to modify my objects' instead of a custom permissions box/GUI/checkbox. This was changed as I only thought of it later, and figured I should float the idea as it would make 1229 a LOT easier to implement for the Lindens. I'm conscious of their hard work in maintaining SL and I want to be nice to them and save them work where I can.
2) rephrasing 'should' to 'could' with regards to notifying all people in the keyholder property when a locked item is deleted, to make it absolutely clear that it would be great if this was possible but it should NOT be required for all locked objects.


My appearance till here? I don't think I've ever met you, so I guess you know me only from this topic.
I have no desire to have lots of power over other residents. I enjoy power exchange *play* with *friends*, because of the dynamic there with someone I know. My attitude to power is that one should only has as much power as one is comfortable with using responsibly and which others agree to.
IIRC, I've never been warned by LL for anything. In fact I was, a few days ago, considering volenteering for the help teams becuase I appreciate the world that LL have created, and I realise that if I help them out they're more likely to have free time to work on improving SL in ways I can't.

It seems to me that Leffard is making lots of assumptions about me, without knowing me at all.
I can understand if he finds the concept of BDSM play worrying, but that should not be a reason to stop us having our fun, especially when it harms nobody.


I realise that some bad scripts may try to use these features, and that is why I designed safeguards into them to make it easy for avatars to detach truly abusive objects from them, even if they are locked. I'm intentionally designing these proposals to minimise the potential for malware. Doesn't that show I'm against malware?

The ToS bans content that contains those things. It does not ban suggesting, via a democratic process and open public forum, a way to allow other features which some people are alarmed about due to malware concerns, but which are actually designed so that malware cannot abuse them.

As far as I am aware, these proposals would be acceptable under the ToS. I was never aware of saying they weren't. I think you misread me on that point. Please quote the exact place I say they were not acceptable under the ToS.


I'm prepared to revise and or abandon my proposals if they turn out not to be in the best interests of either BDSM players or the wider SL community. How exactly is that morally dubious? Oh, and there is a reason my nick is Angel... I place a high value on being nice to people, and avoiding doing things which harm them. Again, my willingness to revise or abandon my proposals if I find reason to think they would harm BDSMers or SL as a whole show this.


1) you give your time freely, as do I.
2) I have no intention of being misleading or manipulative now, nor did I ever. In fact I created a forum topic about this precisely to encourage open and honest discussion. I could have just had the proposal on the voting system, sitting there quietly, accumulating votes without you realising it.... but I diddn't. I wanted a public debate, I wanted to make sure the proposals were well designed and had safeguards against abuse. That's why I'm in this thread.
3) Really, how can you take anything here to be harassment? It's certainly not intended to be.... before replying to this post I wasn't aware of your existence - I may have replied to an earlier post of yours but I talk to many people in the course of a day and diddn't even remember you!
4) I don't complain about spending my time here, because I'm willing to do that in order to make my proposals better and make sure they help SL as much as possible. If your goal is to help SL, fine, but realise, you're a volenteer, and you donate your time. If you don't want to volenteer, again, that's your choice.


So don't buy the content with these features enabled. Content producers can't lock an item on you without your permission. You can always complain to the Lindens. Finally, you understimate the fact I am prepared to revise them so they don't, as you put it, "suck".


I agree, a way of locking clothes/skins/shapes (in the sense of 122 would be very useful. Again, that a good suggestion I'd hope the Lindens read if they were going to act on these proposals. See? Public debate helps improve the quality of proposals


1) There is no trickery, the fact I'm going to a lot of effort to put all this on a public forum and encourage open debate is proof of this.
2) I proposed two different ones so that people would have a genuine choice and could indicate their level of support. I'm not "prepared" for either being accepted, atm I think it will probably be months before either gets a response from the Lindens (given their current workload).

Put very bluntly, given the huge time lag in developing new features, and also the fact that LL has so much on its plate already, I think that by the time these feature proposals are implemented it might be a year later and I might no longer be playing SL at all. I'm proposing them partly because I think they'd be fun to have, but also because I think they'd be genuinely useful.

You seem to accuse me of being out here simply out of self-interest. I wonder how you square that with the fact I know I might not even be around when/if these things I propose eventually end up in SL. It's like the /13/a7/104417/1.html list - some things I'd really like to see put into practice... but I know that many of them will take so long that simple short term whining at LL to implement them is futile. The good thing to do is to encourage a debate on them and then, hopefully, the best formulation of them which most improves SL as a whole will get implemented into a future version of SL. Even if I'm not still around in the years from now when all this stuff is put into practice, it'll still be nice to know I helped out

Angel Fluffy,
My post stated clearly that I am not only concerned about both features rather more concerned about that a BDSM lobbyist gives a damn shit on the laws of TOS and CS here in favor of getting more control or control over control.

And to point out, I got the thread and the proposals as I got them. And if there is any possibility to get software proposals wrong, then your overall requirements spec is simply not acceptable. And if your functionality description doesn't really fit to the intended and proposed use, your specs aren't more worth than the white paper on rolls, where I sometimes pick a little part from it and clean something up.

If the thread and the proposals provoke this than this is the drama potential of this topic. And I was not the only one who was against the proposals 1228 and 1229.

The proposals 1228 and 1229 provide content creators a way to stick their creations in my face only to make it harder to get rid of them. Shall I love this? I loved it as good as possible.

But I will stop drama now as it is better to stick to the proposed features and to state my opinion there clear.

Both proposals introduce *new* basic mechanisms for forced collar and abuse as I don't know what a given object is actually intendent to do, so your proposed features don't actually give much in reward except of loosing control.

A good mechanism for try-before-you-buy like a one/several time use mechanism sounds not bad to me and to introduce a mechanism to allow a user to keep an attachment sticky, so it won't be replaced or dropped, or to allow a user to easily grant and revoke attachment permissions to another object seems good to me as well.

I will describe your proposals in layman terms:
Microsoft Windows wracks my system to death, it doesn't boot anymore. The only way to circumvent is to get rid of it are these two:

Proposal 1228: I as the controller of a subsystem am bothered by Windows if I wanna get rid of it as it don't wanna stop running
- Is this a functionality Windows needs to survive? To bother the user to let it stay even with a window? I am the user and it is my system.

Proposal 1229: I as the controller of a subsystem are not allowed to get rid of Windows if I wanna get rid of it and still be the owner of a licence as I have bought it, rather I have to destroy it completely.
Furthermore it is allowed to send notifications to Bill Gates directly and asks for allowance. I as the user of the system have to wait untill Bill Gates comes out of his holiday to give me his approval to do so.

Furthermore, Microsoftboss Bill Gates is not enforced to clearly state about this dominant behaviour by his software on me in a licence. And even a window that I have to click is dominant in my eyes if it is controlled by someone else.
In fact he doesn't provide a licence for that at all. And, as the CS states clearly, no one cares about this behaviour.

Would you accept this? I not both of them. Under no circumstances. At all. These are the beginnings and advanced version of a basic virus/malware/worm functionality behaviour what you suggest: To prevent users to get rid of them. And even a single window is too much if the scripted thingy isn't working for me anymore.

And even if there would be a little menu in the debug menu to stop all working attachments or to get rid of them this is simply not acceptable as a user interface for the general customer.

I didn't thought about the following suggestion too much, so it can be improved of course.
I would rather suggest to allow a predefined attribute for e.g. usage counts that is decreased with every wear/attach. At zero the user can't use it anymore.
- No script control needed here. This should be able to be predefined at the creation time or during reezing/transfering of an object.
More messing around with the permissions an objectowner has on an object during runtime is in my eyes not really needed.

Sticky behaviour to allow avatar controllers to stick an attachment to their attachment position to prevent incidential removal can be provided.
Some old windows systems (Sun Openview) provide such a capability for their windows. They provide something like a pin-point-button in the window to actually pin-point a window to a certain possition. Any new attachment attached to the same place will either query for replacement allowance or simple ignore this request, toggleable by the user.
- No scripting access here, as an object should not be allowed to trick around with this. It is of the free wish of the user to pin-point an attachment somewhere and configure this behaviour as described above.

And to give out the control over sl-client attachment attaching behaviour itself to the object creator who, as stated in the CS, can't be kept responsible at all except for explicit TOS violations, is in my eyes a power I would grant and revoke as the users wishes. The software should simply stop and go away. If it doesn't do so, as sometimes in animations, this is rather a bug.
Granting control of attachment behaviour to an object can be useful of course. But to provide or to revoke this power should be always under the control of the user. The user should be able to grant an attachment a by the overall system well defined amount of power (that is not defined here, a serious topic though).
The user has to ensure that the software is trustworthy to him to grant this permission. At exactly this point some sort of social backing and education for new users is needed to ensure that they know their own power over their avatar.

And if tiny suggested proposals as 1228 and 1229 provoke long long explanations as in this thread about them then they are ill designed. A good design doesn't need many explanations as they make things only more complicated as they already are.

So I stay to my opinion. No built in collar functionality in sl and no collar light. Under no circumstances. Better a really good solution for object attachment and object use behaviour and permissions.

One might be able to built proposals 1228 and 1229 in about 2010 when sl is going to be oss and one can do with it as one wishes. But then the user is able to decide which client software he chooses and it it is likely one with a proper client permission system. And furthermore likely one with a proper server permission system as well.

I don't wanna discuss this topic beyond this.

Regards,
Leff.

P.S. The way I suggested to ensure an improved attachment interaction is not intended for further use without ensuring that security wholes can't be tricked by software. Furthermore I think it is actually not possible to ensure complete security by technology allone as software exploits, mal(functioning)ware and other trickery mankind is able to create will likely attack exactly the weakest point of an avatar and furthermore it's controller. So an acceptable tradeoff between security controls, attachment permissions and object behaviour needs to be developed. This is a serious challenge and needs proper backing by sl experience as well as development experience.

Between debates like this and stupid stuff like /142/1e/99991/1.html it just makes me want to put down the LSL compiler, pick up the C compiler again, and do more work on my own metaverse game.

I think so too. But I was requested to state my opinion and name a better way and I did so. This group is in some way a feature heaven and discussion a bit like a feature sandbox.

For me, as sl provides possibilities and people and there is not much of a experiencable barrier between people in-world, interaction of people as different as they are will always be a problem.

And if no one else is suspicios about the behaviour of the proposal creators of clear malware functionality and no one else states clearly that this is not in the intention of the SL Rules at all then I do so as these proposals are a serious and alarming attack on everybodys freedom.

And I will defend my freedom with as much force as it seems appropriate to me. I don't see any reason to apologize if a group maxes out the barriers and tries to weaken the SL Rules by introducing a precedence proposal of how to weaken them.
A tactic to organize themselves and to check out what is possible and to search for weak points is in my eyes a well known tactic to achieve objectives that are not acceptable in general.

I wanna live neither in MalwareSL nor in BDSMSL. Any such occurences who influence other people not part of this gameplay should be defended and people should fight for their own secondlife here instead of leaving.

Regards,
Leffard.

1) I don't pretend to represent the whole BDSM community.
2) I care about the ToS and CoS, which is one of the reasons I opted to have a public discussion about this and requested constructive feedback.
3) I have enough responsibility already. I don't want control over random avs, and I don't think any good BDSMer would either. I would like the chance to try a better locking system with those in SL who'd also enjoy it, or find it useful for commercial purposes like selling single-use items.



Doesn't windows prompt you if you attempt to, say, format the C drive, do a system restore, or somesuch?

Prompting for confirmation before doing some actions which cause great change and which are often done by accident is, imho, a good idea.

As for 1229... the analogy is not a good one. A better one would be a record label selling you permission to listen to a song ONCE, like a disposable CD/DVD that self destructs after a single playing. You buy the CD knowing that you only want to listen to it once, and don't care if its useless afterwards. Heck, you support the development of disposable CDs, becuase you know you won't like most music, so it's easier to pay 10$ to listen to 1000 of the best songs once on a disposable DVD, for example, and note the ones you like, then it is to have to actually confine your buying to buying unlimited playing versions of only the CDs you know you like. Of course, if you want to SAVE the CD/DVD so that you can play its content again, despite agreeing when buying it that you'd only get a version you could play once... you ask for permission from the record label... fair enough?

I no longer support proposal 1229 - truly locking attachments on avatars in SL. First I'm going to explain why and then afterwards I'm going to encourage people to switch their votes to proposal 1228 - prompt-before-remove protection against accidental detachment of important attachments instead. The 'why' will be covered in the smaller text below (to mark it out), and the details of how to transfer your votes will be under that in larger text.


I've thought about this again, doing a little deduction about 1229...

What are the advantages of it?
1) Single use attachments
2) BDSM players have more fun.

Unfortunately, proposal 1229 isn't good as a way to implement single use attachments because I realise there are better ways of implementing single-use attachments, such as the idea of 'rented' wearables that was already brought up. As a consequence, I can no longer claim that 1229 is a good thing for all SL residents as it is a good way to allow single-use attachments, because there is a better proposal for implementing single-use attachments out there.

Also, I thought BDSM players can have more fun. But would they, really? I've been thinking about it over the past few days, and when I posted :

From: Angel Fluffy

Personally, in order for this argument (that it'd leave some submissives out of pocket) against 1229 to succede, it seems to me that we must give evidence that :
1) there are many poor submissives in SL
AND 2) they would not be able to insist that their collarer buy their collar
AND 3) they would not be able to insist that their collarer pay them the cost of the collar before they would grant them the permission to lock it.
AND 4) we think that having to accept the deletion of bondage gear you may have paid 400L$-2000L$ for in order to regain control you previously chose to give away is a bad thing, not a valuable lesson.
AND 5) we think everyone should be unable to make this choice, in order to stop a few people from making this wrong choice.

I thought the argument did not work, but now, I realise that it might well work, because #1 is obvious, #2 and #3 are probably inevitable given the nature of some submissives, and #4 and #5 are still dubious, but a powerful argument can be made that we should protect those already vulnurable to abuse as they are in unequal power relationships, and that this must take precedence over allowing the enjoyment/freedom of others.

But bluntly, if this proposal was implemented, I now believe, some people might abuse it in BDSM to help keep submissives in relationships they do not wish to be in. There will be some people who are too poor to be able to afford to replace a 600L collar, and there will be bad doms who take advantage of this. Frankly there are enough bad doms in SL already that it makes sense to side with the submissive on the implementation of features which affect BDSM wherever possible.



I no longer support 1229 because:
1) I've come to think it would not offer as good an implementation of single-use attachments as some alternative proposals would, and thus cannot be justified as something that would be good for all SL residents.
2) I have growing concerns that it might be used abuse vulnurable people, and while I normally support choice, in this case my conscience won't let me do this as I know a lot of submissives and when I think about it a lot, it becomes clear that protecting them from potential abuse is the most important thing.

I still support 1228, because so far, I've not heard any reasons why that proposal has significant abuse potential, but I know it would be useful for a lot of things beyond BDSM.

In summary, I'm dropping my support for 1229... and I urge anyone who voted for 1229 to swap their votes over to 1228 instead.

How do I transfer my votes from 1229 to 1228?
1) Go to http://secondlife.com or https://secondlife.com/account/ and make sure you are logged into the SL website.
2) go to proposal 1229 - your name should appear under "Voter Details" in the top right of the screen. If it does not, repeat step 1.
3) scroll down to the bottom of proposal 1229 past "Linden Notes:", to the drop-box which says "You have <number> votes allocated to this proposal." Check that it reads "0". If it reads anything other then 0, then click the "set votes to" box, make sure it reads "set votes to 0" and then hit "apply" to remove your votes from this proposal.
3) click proposal 1228 - and again, check your name appears in the top right of the screen, logging in again if it doesn't. Once it does, then scroll down, past "Linden Notes:" to the bottom, and select the "set votes to" box. Set the allocated votes to the highest number you can afford - you get free 10 votes in the system as is, and you can spend them all on one proposal, or, as I encourage, spreading them around by allocating them to different proposals, as long as you don't exceed 10 votes across all the proposals you have allocated votes to. Once you have selected how many votes you want to apply to 1228, hit the 'apply' button and the page will refresh and show you have votes allocated there.
4) optionally, browse the votes database to find other good proposals to vote on. Some of my favourites are :
voting: encourage voting when grid is down
attachments: multiple attachments per attachment point
voting: more votes per player on the voting system
copyleft: support the creative commons in SL
security: don't show objects in inaccessible parcels
payment: support egold
website: allow iming friends from the SL website
- but I'm sure you can find plenty. When you find a good one, before allocating votes to it, it's a good idea to use the search tool to check that another, similar proposal doesn't exist with more votes already.

Remember, with voting, if we get over 500 votes on a proposal then LL have to consider the idea.

But 1228 is actually still useless with the usecases you suggest:
I quote your complete feature proposal and put my comments on it.


Why should the object needs to have access to this property? Is there any reason to do so? I don't see any reason to introduce a way to give up control to an attachment by bugging me with any window without getting more actual functionality.



Yes, exactly. Your object wants to prevent itself from being removed. This is malware behaviour as I described in this thread before. An object wants to stay sticky without providing any more actual functionality by this mechanism.



But how and why should the attachment know that it shouldn't be really removed or that this is only an incident. The avatar controller is the only one who knows that the object shouldn't be removed. The attachment itself is mainly dumb software that only insists not to be removed with your suggested functionality.
Wedding rings, shields and other items can't know during the time they are created if or if they should not be removed by the controller when they are attached or not.
The only and only usecase where an attachment knows that it shouldn't be removed is your collar and everything collar like that doesn't show up as a collar and tries to gain further control over the user without providing any functionality at all.


I just laugh if someone says that the by this feature proposal provided functionality provides any way to "detect conflicts on attachment points"
Instead your feature proposal basically only forces a user to deal with conflicts on attachments points by an attachment without giving any further functionality back.
Any object that uses this bugs the user getting attached and bugs the user by staying attached.
Do I need a further "remove any attachment to don't get bugged by shity software anymore" object like a "stop all animations" we allready have now.



Exactly. A by the object creator shity locked item bugs me not to be removed. This is the only useful usecase. No other usecases really exist in this feature proposal as long as these permissions can be controlled by a script.

Before introducing a functionality like this and giving scripters any bugging power in their hands it should always be prefered to give the avatar controller more power over their attachments with a real attachment permission control and give them a way to set attachments sticky on their own and to avoid scripting access to this security features. Especially the sticky functionality would give *any* now existing attachment this functionality.

Any serious software I have seen so far that bugs me with a window to prevent incidential quitting gives a way to disable this. Because the user and only the user knows if he is careful or not. All other software that tries to prevent, even by only a window, is ill by design and is malware.

And to force scripters who want to benefit from this feature to provide a window dialog/settings section to disable this is ill design and should be rather handled by a general attachment permission control.

The avatar controller is the only one who knows where he wants attachments to be attached and where conflicts can occur. And he is the only one who knows if an attaching conflict really occurs or if he really wants to have an attachment to be replaced silently.
Not any object and not the object scripter at all is in this position. Don't give a scripter any power which they aren't able to deal with in any way.

Everyone who knows during creation time that he doesn't want to be removed during runtime introduces malware or collarware functionality. And this is the one and only usecase where this functionality is useful and nowhere else.

And people who still support a misleading proposal and misleading functionality descriptions without seeing a need to do any further actions to clean this shit up are in my eyes not trustworthy persons at all.

And people who still try to weaken the TOS and the CS by introducing malfunctionware into sl scripting should be really warned or rather treated accordingly as those are hazardous suspects.

And all people who try to introduce basic SNOW CRASH behaviour by introducing functionality into sl that weakens the security situation of a user should be banned rather immediately.

Regards,
Leff.

The proposals of an integrated sl functionality modelled after the guidelines and desires of a part of the BDSM community should be enough to know the basic objectives of all of them.



Someone who has the neck to propose features who are not within the TOS and the CS and to force Lindens to acknowledge that proposal by lobbying in the related subgroup to vote has never spent a single thought about TOS and CS. This shows me that this person was never aware of TOS and CS restrictions on his personal behaviour and even more his feature proposals.



A person who tells he is a collar scripter, so someone who creates an object that allows avatars to be remote controlled like telly by other avatars and sells this to arbitrary persons has no responsibility at all.

And anyone who crosses the borders of TOS and CS with public votable proposals and not even being aware of it isn't responsible at all. And everyone else who states otherwise after that misleads people about his personal intention.



As long as in sl a lock doesn't need to look like a lock there shouldn't be a scripted locking functionality on avatars at all.



Locking and single-use functionality has nothing in common. Single-use is single use. And locking avatars is a complete different topic.



This prevents an immediate action of the real functionality provided by a software.
The integral functionality of a software able to prevent itself from going away is a bug and is ill design, as the user of a software should always be able to decide if a software runs or not. If this is the integral functionality you want than this is malware.



What in 1228 proposed is not only a confirmation before doing some action in general. It rather proposes a malware functionality to prevent action by the user. If this action is by incident or not simply can't be decided by anyone else than the user.
The proposed scripting access in 1228 gives the object creator a power he can't really deal with because he doesn't know when and how incidential or real wanted behaviour by the user occurs.
The proposed scripted feature 1228 is not useful to the general scripter as he needs to deal with it accordingly which puts a great deal of effort to ensure that everything works in a serious and usable way.

I don't like brains who don't think clear, who don't give any usable arguement that isn't misleading because the used usecase doesn't fit for the proposed functionality and I don't like brains who state false and contradict themselves all the time after crossing a lot of barriers without being aware of it.

Regards,
Leff.

After reading over the recent comments on 1229--Jack in particular--choice is now under attack from PC moralists and other self-appointed guardians of what is "right". Put this in perspective: 1229 will not reach out through the screen and grab the unsuspecting.

Jack...go somewhere else with your sniveling moralism

1) I no longer support 1229. Therefore I'm probably not going to reply to any of Leffard's criticisms of 1229.


2) Objects do not have desires, people do. Try to avoid treating objects like they have a will of their own... they don't. They do only what their creators and users tell them to.
3) My desire is that a prompt-on-remove exist, so that people who have items which they want to keep on when they switch av but which are not necessarily copyable, or are unique, can be kept on with the minimum of fuss. Items like wedding rings, shields, jetpacks, utility attachments like radar, and so on....
4) 1228 is not intended to make it any more difficult to remove an object you want to remove, hence why the 'locked' property is *possible* not required, and is *not* the default for attachments. It is just there for some attachments to use if the wearer wants to use them.


5) The attachment must run a script to take advantage of this property. Thus the avatar should be able to set/unset this property themselves, at a minimum, using the scripts in their attachments, if not by using the 'edit' interface. Thus the avatar should be in control of which scripts use this.
6) The attachment is software that is TRYING to respond to the demands of the user - because if it doesn't do this it will be discarded. Ultimately scripts only exist becuase they are useful to someone, and they only get passed between people because the recipient thinks they are useful. Thus, ultimately, scripts which are not useful fade away, while useful scripts are shared and expand over time.


7) It does not force users to deal with them, actually... they can simply not use items scripted with the lock feature, or not tell the script to enable this feature. You underestimate consumer power, I think - people will prefer items which are more useful over those which are less useful, and if item A abuses this feature then people will switch to similar product B and the makers of A will be forced to either turn the feature off, make it easy to control, or lose market share.



Aww. I guess that means I'm off your Christmas list Such a shame

More seriously...
Even if my proposals violate the ToS, which, it must be said, I do not believe they do, then :
A) deciding that is the Lindens' job, not yours.
B) the fact is, I'm proposing them in an open and democratic way. If people were banned for suggesting things in an open and democratic way, even things which would change the existing laws if implemented, then there would be no way of changing or voicing opposition to any existing laws. This is obviously a bad thing if you value such things as free speech, democracy, etc.
C) if a Linden did come along and say 1228 (or 1229, or any other proposal) violates the community standards, then my probable reponse would be " oh well, then at least mark it 'can't do' and explain why, so we have our votes returned to us, and close the topic stating why".

Ultimately, I realise we're all at the mercy of the Lindens. They make the law, they enforce the law, and there's pretty much nothing we can do about it apart from appeal to them to change it, or leaving SL.
I'm fine with this - it's how websites and services on the internet usually work.
I would be slightly sad if a Linden came along and closed this topic, then marked "can't do" both proposals, but I would accept it. They make the rules, we just live by them. We can petition them to change the rules but they are not in any way obliged to listen to us, let alone to change them. I'd hope they'd at least read the whole topic before doing this, but they don't have to. As their voting system says




9)
Woah nelly!
What on earth makes you think that you are in a position to know the basic objectives of all BDSMers?

Also, what about the people who are definately not BDSMers but who voted for 1228, and who have replied to this topic stating that they'd love a way to keep their jetpack/shield/radar/etc attached when they switch avs?


10)
I'm tiring of this objection. No linden has ever commented on these proposals and said that any part of them violates the ToS. Given your hostility to me I struggle to accord your judgements, about the ToS or anything else, much weight.
I'm fine with people arguing with me... arguing with people is pretty much my job. It's just that when people start acting like they have certain knowledge that I have bad intentions, when I clearly, demonstrably don't and know I don't.... it starts making me wonder if I should be listening to them.
Civil disagreement is fine, but if people start being uncivil to me, my usual response is to ignore them until they learn to behave better. I'm a good guy and occasionally I make mistakes (being an imperfect human and all) but my intentions are good... if people persistently assume the opposite then having discussions with them quickly becomes annoying.


11)
A) I am not a collar scripter. I have never made or sold a collar in SL, or RL.
B) None of my proposals (even 1229) suggested allowing the remote control "like telly" of other avs, simply because I don't see the point of that idea. I don't see that it'd be useful, so I don't support it.
C) See earlier point about ToS. I still think you've got a very warped and inaccurate view of my relationship tot he ToS/CS. Accepting the following points may help you understand my thinking :
I don't believe I'm violating the ToS/CS. Even if I was, it is the Linden's job to tell me that, not yours, because I no longer trust your judgement since you have started attributing me bad intentions when I know I don't have any.


I could say more, but I'm getting rather tired of spending time I could be using to enjoy myself in SL replying to Leff.
So I'm going to leave this with the following summary.
1) I'm going to contact the Lindens, probably via live help, and specifically ask them if 1228 or 1229 violate the ToS, since I don't believe I can trust Leff's judgement.
2) I'm increasingly realising that debating with Leff here is futile... apart from the fact he appears consistently attribute me bad intentions which I do not have and thus make it very difficult for me to convince him of anything.... I'm also increasingly aware that LL probably has such a backlog of things to implement in SL that it might make more sense to come back to this whole topic in a year, once the more important features like the ones in /13/a7/104417/1.html


So, in conclusion, I'll probably talk with the Lindens to check if 1228/1229 are within the ToS.. and maybe post a few more updates, but I may well stop debating them now or soon (with Leff at least) as it is simply not worth spending this much of my time doing this when I could be enjoying myself

Good idea to ask Lindens. And I will stop here as well. We could continue a long time as our opinions and interest are rather diametral. But as every resident each of use can only state his own opinion and the people you can trust here the most are the Lindens. So I also think an official opinion is useful in this situation.

I will only quote a Linden response out of a feature proposal already in the vote system:


So Lindens are very well aware of the security aspects in sl.

Regards,
Leff.

I am pretty sure a better address to command is to find a Linden who doesn't feel sick with implementing a collar. I know one. His name is BDSM Linden (edited: I was wrong, his name is of course Sadistic Linden and you can meet him at his personal studio). But beware, he might freeze you first for no reason and fistfuck you with his thorngloves back and forth just for his personal joy. I am pretty sure you will enjoy this.

(And everyone else: apologizes for reaching out of the monitor)

Regards,
Leff.

Off-Topic: Leffard, you might be wrong in your belief what BDSM is all about. I suggest reading a good book on the topic and trying to understand, that BDSM is not at all about being abused in any way. BDSM holds a wide variety of preferences that can not be reduced to "hurt me". "abuse me", "throw me away".

On-Topic: I strongly support both votes, yet they could be merged into one. Make the attachments lockable, so they won't come off by accident. Additionally, add a keyword properety to the lock that can be set by anyone who has modify rights on the object (e.g. yourself, your master / dom, a friend ...). This would be useful for all cases discussed here. In case of misuse (keyword holder refuses to open the lock) or accident (you lose the keyword yourself), you can always simply delete the object, which may cause financial loss, but that's how it works in RL, too. Maybe even a Linden could help out with a particularly expensive item.

Comments?