Abuse Reporting Begins Overhaul (vs Spy Complaints)
|
|
Ariya Draken
Registered User
Join date: 4 Dec 2006
Posts: 53
|
12-08-2006 14:03
Well. They admitted it.  The reports can no longer be handled. After waiting one week for my own report, pleading and begging, and so on - I was sort of expecting this to happen. While upgraded muting, self-resolution systems are all nice - these are all tools to be used AFTER the damage has been done. I would like to suggest Linden should seriously consider adding some things to remove problems BEFORE they occur. No problems - no reports. The equation makes sense. My un-answered and un-reviewed abuse report, and what I personally consider a very unpleasant experience that never should happen again would have been 100% avoided if I could have restricted people's ability to peep into my bedroom unrestricted. I wonder how many of those 2000/day reports are issues involving people looking where they shouldn't be looking. I wonder how many the reports would be if users actually KNEW they were being observed - because currently, the only way you know is if the perp actually tells you in some way, and turns spying into direct harassment or solicitation. I posted a thread on camera restrictions a while back - but I have since learned that the suggestion I made isn't the best option. As a result I'm posting this, a general poll of interest. Should Linden offer the SL users a method for privacy, that will somehow (no details here) restrict people's ability to listen and watch your private affairs, on your private property?I think they should - asap. AD From: Linden Blog Abuse Reporting Begins Overhaul
Friday, December 8th, 2006 at 9:30 AM PST by daniellinden
According to my notes, Linden Lab received a grand total of 43 Abuse Reports during my first week of work in 2003. Jumping forward to the end of 2006, the number is closer to 2,000 per day.
On a purely clerical level, this kind of volume is not readily sustainable; to give each report five minutes of investigation and attention would add up to more than 160 hours day.
It could be done of course, but the bigger issue lies in the content of the Reports; the vast majority are either: problems Linden Lab cannot resolve (we can’t force anyone to see eye to eye with anyone else), situations Linden Lab should not resolve (neighborly property line disputes or transactional issues), and reports that aren’t Abuse Reports at all – they don’t have anything to do with the Community Standards and belong in other communications channels.
With so many spurious reports, our ability to find and act on the reports that truly affect the health of the Second Life community is severely inhibited. It can take days just to get to a specific Report or problem – and that’s not acceptable. If you’ve file an Abuse Report and think that nothing’s happened, it probably just took longer than you expect. The solution, then, is either to vastly expand the numbers of hands sorting through the Abuse Report queue or to dramatically overhaul the way in which we solicit and handle reports. We’ve chosen the later.
The main thrust of this project is to move our process away from the current one report/one resolution model and towards a system that with will quickly and accurately identity and manage those individuals and behavior that make Second Life feel unwelcoming or unsafe. The revised system will focus also on moving problems towards more useful paths for resolution – specifically by enabling and encouraging the development of inter-Resident mediation and dispute resolution options for those issues Linden Lab isn’t equipped to resolve. A further emphasis will be placed on self-resolution — by improivng existing tools like mute and parcel-based access restrictions.
Stay tuned to this space for details and progress updates on this project. |
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
Yes, some mechanism to restrict visibility...
12-08-2006 15:03
I prefer some kind of "underground skybox" or "parcel basement", that the landowner could control access to, but the Lindens have apparently been considering a "Phantom Zone" approach, as indicated in this response. Either of these are easier to implement than some "prim level" feature, and are almost as versatile. In both proposals the parcel boundary would act as an absolute limit to object visibility... kind of like a "void" that let the land show through. * In the "phantom zone" idea you wouldn't be able to interact with objects or people in the excluded zone, even if you or your camera was in the zone. * In the "parcel basements" idea the parcel boundary would be the same kind ofbarrier to information. Objects and avatars that have been allowed (by the landowner) into the subterranean region would be able to see and interact with the whole parcel, but parcels with other owners (and probably non-contiguous parcels with the same owner) would be "voids". |
|
Haravikk Mistral
Registered User
Join date: 8 Oct 2005
Posts: 2,482
|
12-08-2006 15:33
I'm still pro boundary boxes/zones, since it's all-inclusive and allows for some other nice features at the same time or later on, in addition to forcing server-side occlussion (ie no streaming of content), since IMO it's the more powerful solution I'd rather have that than a sort of 'stop-gap' feature, too many of those, and it's too easy for LL to then ignore the problem once they implement something that they think is the end to the problem.
I dunno, parcel basements would probably be fine, but really we shouldn't need to separate our content in this way anyway, we should be able to have the buildings we build and actually be in them rather than having skyboxes or secret underground hollowed out volcano lairs. Sure you can simulate the effect, but it'll still not be perfect, even with scripted teleports (speaking of which... *nudges the Lindens*).
_____________________
Computer (Mac Pro):
2 x Quad Core 3.2ghz Xeon
10gb DDR2 800mhz FB-DIMMS
4 x 750gb, 32mb cache hard-drives (RAID-0/striped)
NVidia GeForce 8800GT (512mb)
|
|
Ariya Draken
Registered User
Join date: 4 Dec 2006
Posts: 53
|
12-08-2006 15:40
I agree there. I have a pool on my roof. I don't use it. I had a bedroom. I moved it to a sky box. I have a beach. I don't use it. If I get to chose between solutions - an underground bunker is the last choice I'll go for. What am I? A Vampire? An earth worm?
It sucks that I can't feel the sun on my skin - and feel even remotely secure at the same time. (As if I felt secure in the sky box... It's just an illusion of safety.)
I guess it could be argued that if you are sitting on your ROOF - you should be seen - and I can't even argue with that. Thing is, if LL give me a way to secure my bed room, I'll probably be able to secure the roof-top pool too. Land is expensive. We can't all afford a pool house.
AD
|
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
12-08-2006 16:59
From: Haravikk Mistral I'm still pro boundary boxes/zones, since it's all-inclusive and allows for some other nice features at the same time or later on, in addition to forcing server-side occlussion (ie no streaming of content), since IMO it's the more powerful solution If these "zones" are smaller than a parcel they'll require an awful lot of additional bookkeeping on the part of the server. On parcel boundaries (whether phantom zone or basement) most of the necessary bookkeeping is already being done. And I can't see any major advantages of a finer grained partition over the phantom zone approach. In fact since the parcel an object is on is based on the location of the root prim, a parcel based approach allows you to create any build you want around *and through* the hidden content, and the server doesn't have to recalculate what's visible to you continually as you move through zones. Parcel basements don't provide that feature, but having a completely private "mini sim" is damned attractive. From: Ariya Draken If I get to chose between solutions - an underground bunker is the last choice I'll go for. It wouldn't look like an "underground bunker", it would look like a private mini sim. But if you don't want that, then the phantom zone approach gives you everything without forcing the sim to do occlusion calculations on top of everything else. |
|
Ariya Draken
Registered User
Join date: 4 Dec 2006
Posts: 53
|
12-08-2006 17:21
Like a private mini-sim? Oh. That's kind of nice... I'll take a small desert island please. Is the rum and the cabana boy included in the tier?
|
|
ed44 Gupte
Explorer (Retired)
Join date: 7 Oct 2005
Posts: 638
|
12-08-2006 20:07
I would have thought that each bounding box would simply have a position and size vector. All objects in the sim would need to have a tag showing which, if any bounding box they are inside of. Then before transmitting anything the algorithm might be:
client av inside its bounding box?
if yes, only send stuff from its bounding box.
If not, send stuff not inside any bounding box.
Similar criteria for chat.
A house might be sold complete with interior bounding box.
This might also benefit lag. However, would go against LL philosophy of openness.
|
|
Ariya Draken
Registered User
Join date: 4 Dec 2006
Posts: 53
|
12-09-2006 03:34
LL receive 2000 abuse reports a day. I think they are revising their ideas on an open society where evryone for some reason respects each other.
|
|
Haravikk Mistral
Registered User
Join date: 8 Oct 2005
Posts: 2,482
|
12-09-2006 10:52
From: Argent Stonecutter If these "zones" are smaller than a parcel they'll require an awful lot of additional bookkeeping on the part of the server. The way I see it being implemented is that the zones would essentially be phantom prims of sorts, if something collides with them, then the zones permissions are applied to it, if something leaves then the permissions no longer apply. So when an object intersects a zone that occludes, then it has a visible bit set that tells the sim not to send it unless the client requesting it is in the same zone. It can even be extended to include an 'exclude surrounding', ie creating areas that ignore objects outside of them, but ignoring objects that are do NOT have the flag set, then checking ones which do, if they're in the same zone then send them. The only main issue really is how best to control the use of zones, and intersecting zones. My thoughts on those are to give parcels a zone limit like prim limits, but zones can be large in size (parcel widths horizontally and X height, though you can make a zone taller it would count as two or more for your limit). Intersection I'd probably just ignore, ie you either have priorities for which is used, or they simply can't intersect, though proper handling is nice. From: Argent Stonecutter In fact since the parcel an object is on is based on the location of the root prim, a parcel based approach allows you to create any build you want around *and through* the hidden content, and the server doesn't have to recalculate what's visible to you continually as you move through zones. I'm not sure I understand, or are you talking about having an 'inner' and an 'outer' parcel (ie creating the division yourself) and then hiding the inner zone while leaving the outer one visible? There'd still be the issue of roofs on buildings and such? Don't get me wrong though, the basement idea is also a very attractive one, I just have the primal fear that if they implemented that, they'd use it as an excuse to not have a more fine grained system 'above ground' such as zones. While personally I'd like both, a private workshop, but also privacy and fine-controls in my own buildings.
_____________________
Computer (Mac Pro):
2 x Quad Core 3.2ghz Xeon
10gb DDR2 800mhz FB-DIMMS
4 x 750gb, 32mb cache hard-drives (RAID-0/striped)
NVidia GeForce 8800GT (512mb)
|
|
grumble Loudon
A Little bit a lion
Join date: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 612
|
12-09-2006 21:33
A zone concept would be great as long as it allowed you to specify the Z as well.
It would be annoying if all they could see from outside was your avatars.
On the other hand, underground is now once again a reality. We can turn off camera limits and build underground. Then you have to sit on a scripted box with a offset animation to move underground.
Being able to truly build underground would be even better for flying.
I wonder how hard it would be for the sim to have a second water surface at -730m and you would only see the objects that are on that parcel the rest would be sky and water. You would have to make your island out of prims, but it would be your island.
On the other hand a landscape made up of nothing but teleporters would also be ugly.
It all reminds me of that one movie where the building's computer becomes intelligent and realizes that it must destroy itself in order for humanity to survive.
The problem isn’t someone looking into your bedroom. The problem is that people get upset with what they see or use the information they get in other abusive ways.
|
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
12-12-2006 18:36
From: Haravikk Mistral The way I see it being implemented is that the zones would essentially be phantom prims of sorts, if something collides with them, then the zones permissions are applied to it, if something leaves then the permissions no longer apply. Which means that the sim has to track N bits of additional information (1 bit for each bounding box in the sim) for every object in the sim. That's a significant amount of additional bookkeeping. Parcel boundaries are less granular, and the sim is already tracking what parcel an object is in for prim limits and parcel access... so that's already accounted for. From: someone I'm not sure I understand, or are you talking about having an 'inner' and an 'outer' parcel (ie creating the division yourself) and then hiding the inner zone while leaving the outer one visible? Yes. From: someone There'd still be the issue of roofs on buildings and such? No, because the parcel an object is in is the parcel the root prim on the object is in. You would put the root prim of the roof in the outer parcel. This is a separate proposal from "parcel basements", and the advantage over a more fine-grained aproach is primarily that it ISN'T that fine grained. |
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
12-12-2006 18:39
From: grumble Loudon A zone concept would be great as long as it allowed you to specify the Z as well. Hell, ban lines would be nicer if you could specify the "Z" as well. From: someone It would be annoying if all they could see from outside was your avatars. That's not in the model the Lindens have commented on.  |
|
Haravikk Mistral
Registered User
Join date: 8 Oct 2005
Posts: 2,482
|
12-13-2006 15:31
From: Argent Stonecutter Which means that the sim has to track N bits of additional information (1 bit for each bounding box in the sim) Wuh? You mean 1 bit for each setting flag that can be set surely? ie if the options are: - Can be heard from outside enclosing zone - Can be seen from outside enclosing zone Then that's 2 bits per object tops. I can't really even think of more main features off the top of my head, since the other main one is access, which would be handled on collision using the zone's settings. ie Avatar A's data looks like this: <Key> <Name> <Group Info> <Position> 01 This means that they are in a zone which prevents them from being seen from outside, ie they are culled from information sent to clients. They move out of that zone into another, on hitting the borderline their info becomes: <Key> <Name> <Group Info> <Position> 10 Since this new zone blocks chat from escaping, but does not cull its contents. They then leave this zone into an ordinary (un-zoned) space: <Key> <Name> <Group Info> <Position> 10 No special settings are being enacted. So when it comes time to download nearby objects the algorithm is: - is object in range?
- yes; does object have 'visible' bit set?
- yes; are we in the same zone as that object?
- yes; download object
- no; ignore object
- no; download object
no; ignore object
From: Argent Stonecutter No, because the parcel an object is in is the parcel the root prim on the object is in. You would put the root prim of the roof in the outer parcel. That makes no sense at all. If the inner parcel is big then it's also impossible, would require extra prims etc. To make it workable though you could have an adjustable height, say a maximum of 40m but you can choose where it begins and ends. This would suit the basics needs of anyone who wants true privacy in their skybox and/or ground-level building, so long is it allowed you to block chat, contents and also could be used for controlling access.
_____________________
Computer (Mac Pro):
2 x Quad Core 3.2ghz Xeon
10gb DDR2 800mhz FB-DIMMS
4 x 750gb, 32mb cache hard-drives (RAID-0/striped)
NVidia GeForce 8800GT (512mb)
|