Name one benign use of

This won't happen. Linden Labs doesn't have the manpower this would require.

Policing is like magic, it only works if people believe in it. The only way greater policing of the grid by Linden Labs would alleviate this situation is if there were 2 Linden Employees per active user at all times.

And even then, it probably wouldn't be enough.

We are not capped at 50m/sec.

50m/sec is the fastest speed a non-physical object can go without using the WarpPos approach, which technically is limited only by sim crossings and the data stack.

Our speed cap is 250m/sec. This applies to physical vehicles and avatars.

Capping is not the solution since the capping is actually LATE. By the time the cap takes over, we've been pushed a huge distance already. I've flown at 250m/sec and I swear the push speed exceeds that for one update frame.

Finding a way to stop push from causing too much problems by tweaking the engine is really not a good idea, more so since lag comes into play.

The real solution remains in permissions.

My proposal for a partial solution is a set of options

for the avatar:
[ ] Allow push in safe area
[ ] Prompt for push permissions in safe area
(note: having these options off does not block pushes by landowner even if land is safe).

for land (for parcels marked as safe only):
[ ] Allow push originating from outside parcel
[ ] Allow use of push inside parcel by visiting agent/object
[ ] Prompt for push permission by visiting agent/object inside parcel

for land marked as unsafe
[ ] Allow push originating from outside parcel

Pushes by landowner are automatically enabled only because of many good things like elevators which will create too many dialog boxes if they have to ask permission. The problem here is that overactive security scripts share the same options. I have not found a way to separate the two yet. As it stands if you try to control overactive security scripts, you kill elevators, trampolines, and other external-type levitation effects.

For this proposal, regardless of settings or location, your avatar can be pushed by your own objects (needed at times for vehicle debarking). However, the settings above can prevent you from pushing your own objects (e.g. gun)

Assholes!

Sargeant Major Asshole! Scanner Sargeant Asshole! Gunner Sargeant Asshole!

We're surrounded by an army of Assholes!

{Drops Dark Helmet Mask in displeasure}

I'd rather be able to choose whether land owner push works for myself. I don't buy the "too many dialog boxes" idea, as it need only ask once, and apply that decision for the remainder of the time I'm on the parcel. And of course I could set it to always allow land owner push.

I think land owner pushes would be more or less a given.

Landowners should be able to unsit/bounce anyone on their land, plain and simple.

The issue here isn't land owners luring people onto their land and griefing them, the issue is that people that are guests on private land are more or less free to abuse anyone as they see fit and theres nothing you can do about it unless you, as the landowner, more or less refuse to ever stand up again.

OUCH!! Stop pounding me on the head!!

1m/s anyone?

I've been harassed with llPushObject by a landowner before, so it's not a given for me. Giving me the option to turn off push even for landowners infringes on no one's rights and protects everyone's. Making the options fine-grained enough that I can disable push for everyone, or for everyone EXCEPT the landowner, is the best possible decision. TOS says landowners can't push people against their will, even in self-defense, so this would work pretty well with LL's established opinion: that you have a right not to be pushed, even if by the owner of the land you're over, against your will.

They shouldn't be able to unsit, eject, or teleport home from a script without warning. That is griefing, just as much as it would be if they orbited or Sumo-gunned me. I dare anyone to show me the functional difference.

Oh, what an excellent and well-thought idea!

But, let us take it a step further. The problem with griefers is that they can use LSL to streamline and automate the griefing process. Let's hit 'em where it hurts.

Let's completely disable LSL.

In fact, let's remove it entirely from the engine. We'd sure solve a lot of lag that way!

Really. You can show me a lot of benign uses for LSL, I'm sure. But it doesn't really matter -- you can just substitute your imagination for those. On the other hand, the list of griefy things you can do with LSL is infinite. Infinite! That makes a pretty compelling case for killing LSL altogether.

Removing llPushObject would yield some excellent returns in the short term. But the griefers would simply come up with a new method of griefing after that and you can bet that LSL will still be involved.

Indeed, we have found the quintessential culprit in these matters to be scripting. Let's nip this problem in the bud, shall we?

And if that doesn't work, we can try disabling chat and IM, as well! Those pesky griefers will have a hard time coordinating their attacks and harassing the innocent if they're unable to speak.

Oh yes, such an incredibly valuable thread. I'm sure much good will come from this sort of discussion.

Soon as a greifer atacks the first thing i do is eject them. If thats bad then i guess il be banned for it soon enough. :/ I use a psykes system to do it, on a private estate.

Functional difference is eject and teleport home are two tools that the landowner has access too only over their land. You're confusing greifing with their right to keep thers off their land. Their right by virtue of owning the parcel.

2 employees per active user at all times?

Wow that blows away real life local law enforcement manning requirements.

Whatever...I guess 8 months in SL has shown you the light.

Briana Dawson

Individual dialog boxes will be needed as each object will have to seek permissions and not the parcel. There are push devices that have to hand the avatar off to the next device due to range reasons (the elevator being the primary example) so you can see why the several dialog boxes will appear. Since the permissions structure works more along the lines of LSL and not land management, devices that need handoff to operate will necessarily generate a lot of dialogs.

The elevator in question would be one that can take you to way above 300m. The sit/unsit teleport "hack" has a 300m range. If you want an elevator to go over that and even over 768m you can't use non-physical objects. Range issues prevent a single device from being able to take you all the way up so hand-off procedures are needed. If permissions are not automatic then each hand-off will require a dialog. If such dialogs are implemented and you are late in giving the permission you are likely to fall so far that the device cannot operate properly.

Please show me what supports this in the Terms of Service or Community Standards.

Hypothetical Situaton: You come to Angel's Respite, you pull out a gun and randomly start shooting people. I, as the land owner, freeze you, then eject+ban you with the two rather limp and ineffective tools the Lindens have given me access to...and this is somehow griefing?

Are you a defense lawyer by day or something?

He's talking about scritps that automatically greif passerby - especially while no one is on the parcel in question. Someone flying over your land when no one is there can hardly be equated with someone shooting up a crowd.

Well even if theres no one on the parcel, its still my parcel. If I choose ti use a security system which ejects people from it, or certain portions of it (which is how I have mine set up, more or less all of my 22,000sqM is public except the tiny little piece of it I have as my private space) I don't see how thats griefing either.

I mean property is property, you don't just wander into peoples yards/houses in real life, so I feel the argument that it is griefing is a bit contrite.

Now if you were flying around, and were nowhere within the borders of my property..sure I could see that being borderline griefing, but it doesn't take a math or physics degree to configure a sensor to ensure its not harassing people that aren't well within the area they're not supposed to be in already.

And here we come to the old argument: "it's my land, I can do what I want on it". The point being that given that there is precious little public land in SL, no means of moving around apart from flying over other people's land, you cannot run a mainland with everybody being allowed to do whatever they want on land that they "own", block who they want, bounce who they want and so on.

I'm not trying to be bitchy but it gets me down sometimes. Flying over someone's SL land is not the same as climbing over their RL fence.

Oh I agree here, which is why the one sensor/security protected spot of my parcel is at 285m and the sensor range on it is only set to 48m.

Flying over someones land is one thing, but quite often, that I've noticed, most of the people that attempt to access the private parts of my building apparently do so because they just feel they've a natural right to go whever they want.

Mmm yes... 'it's my right' is fine... until everyone in your sim exercises that right. I have no access lines seared into my retina.

This is much more reasonable. I wish more people took this approach, rather than shutting off an entire parcel. I sectioned off just the small portion of my land that has my house on it, and only turn access off on that when I'm home and need to, and the rest is always open, so people can cross.

I'm not going to enter someone's house, so I don't care if they've got something that pushes you there. It gets annoying when you're just trying to cross somewhere and you're getting shoved around.

My security system has no warning of its own. I do have a "security system: active" sign outside however.

My system's sensor range is irrelevant because it covers the whole building but is designed to ignore anyone who is on the outside of the building except for a cavity at the back. It's pointless really to stay in the cavity area that's why I didn't exclude it anymore.

Hence even without warning on the door there's no griefing. The only way you get ejected is if you actually go inside the house which means getting past closed doors.

Normally I ignore snarky commentary from people that are posting to hear themselves speak...but in this case I'll make an exception.

8 months in SL? How about a decade of being online and dealing with griefers in all their forms since the 14.4kpbs modem?

The psychology is the same Briana. Only the platform changes.

Just like you. I don't even have to know who you are...but I always know, no matter what community I'm in, theres someone like you. Someone that appears to assume that a join date or a post count or having killed the ALLGODMIGHTYDEMONSQUIRRELREDDRAGON OF EVILBANANAS a million times seems to equal some kind of....aforementioned wisdom.

<----Right back at ya.

No, that is just reductio ad absurdam. She makes a valid point and it should be treated seriously.

I realise there is a principle involved in getting rid of something because it can be misused, but I wonder how much of a disaster it would actually be to get rid of llPush? If it got rid of a particularly annoying type of griefing, then I think some people might think it was worth it.

Reductio ad absurdam.

I agree on this. I'm just trying to weigh up, in my head, what we'd lose if llPush did get nerfed in some fashion that made it less of a potential grief threat.

Theres got to be some place in this where LL can step up and introduce a code based restriction that keeps llPush usable for benign uses, but makes it impossible to use to abuse people in a hostile fashion.