BZZZZ-ZAP! Ouch!!!

Vote for Prop 229 and 230

229 bans teleport boot scripts

230 requires warning signs and scripts to let people know that they are on restricted property.

I'm against 229, becasue we need that tool. The land tools are too weak as they stand, land owners and especially private sim owners need a quick and efficient way to deal with habitual greifers. llTeleportAgentHome needs some polishing as a library call, but it works well enough now that, if responsibly used, is a powerful way to protect you and your property.

I'm against 230 becasue requireing visual signs is pretty much unworkable.

May I suggest that there instead be an addition to the TOS that better describes boundaries for the use of the tools:

No open area may immediatly unsit and eject or teleport an agent *unless* that agent has been established as a griefer or otherwise as an antagonist for the property owner(s) via ARs. (Three strike rule?) If a general ban is desired, there must be a clear warning and a delay of one second for every ten meters of land, measured along the widest part of the parcel, with a minimum of 5 seconds.

Closed areas may immediatly eject any avatar, so long as the area is actually enclosed by prims that do not allow an avatar to enter the area by normal movement. (i.e. - not using the sit-cheat or phantomed avatar) Entries that might be described as "doors" or "windows" must be "locked".

llPushObject is *not* a security feature. This is simply disallowed.

I don't have a problem with llTeleportAgentHome. Well, except that half the time the teleport fails if I'm moving fast enough, forcing relog. I just wish there was a requirement that security systems using these objects be supervised. Most applications of security objects in common use are unattended/unoccupied builds.



This is probably aginst the current TOS, or atleast aginst the current confidentiallity policies of LL. Also ineffective as long as the current system of trial accounts exists; its way too trivial for someone that wants to disrupt events to make an alt, buy 5 ForceBomb or whatever the popular tool of choice is today, disrupt 5 events, and then delete the alt.

I concur that altitude limits and warning of ejection need to be set.



The problem with this is that llSensor describes an area in the form of an arc and a radius. Unless your building is a sphere, getting accurate detection without causing a ton of simulator lag is going to be interesting. Mind you that security scripts already generate alot of sensor lag. If you don't belive me, just take a Scan-Foo through the snow sims, or though the area west of Champlain.

I give a solid "so what?" to the sphere "problem".

I use a security script on some of my land for an enclosed area I want no one by me and my sweetie in. The scanner sphere extends somewhat beyond the box as wold be expected. No one standing inside the sensor sphere but outside the secured area would have the slightest clue the security script existed. The wonders of llDetectedPos() and two vectors.

I also reduce the total resource use by having the sensor not only scan a sphere as small as possible to get the work done, but by having it scan only once every five seconds. These 10 times per second 96 meter radius scanners are a totally unessesary waste of resources.

I've been through that area of the snow sims. Holy. Freaking. Cow.

You know, all that said, in the end what we need are better land tools from the Lindens. And better script access to them (adding and removing from the banned list, turning the bans on and off, for instance). Being able to define the height and floor of the ban range would be a good start, too - there's a thread along these lines in feature suggestions somewhere.

Until we get those better tools, though, we do appearantly need well-defined and useful ways to get the privacy people appearantly desperatly want without wrecking things for others.

Just to chime in on this point: It's quite easy to determine a kickable area in the shape of a cube merely by comparing llDetectedPos(#) to llGetPos() on X, Y, and Z. The real problem is people just don't bother, which brings us right back to square one.

Edit: Well, yeah. That's basically what Jillian said.


Enter the problem for the short term: How does one get others to cooperate with this?

Honestly, this isn't even a question of how fixing this problem can be done in my mind - it's when.

Then would you be willing to pay a surcharge that would go to the repair of people's computers that were destroyed because a script that crashed windows right after the person was teleported home???

I didn't think so

Vote for Prop 229 and 230

Sorry to add the the griping rather than offering a solution but I feel I need to mention that I have also on occassion found an establishment listed in Places with a coordinate that falls within a poorly defined and very aggressive security script. Perhaps the owner simply forgot to relocate the coordinates (the one I'm thinking of off the top of my head is actually quite a lovely mall on a private sim) but it's rather shocking, especially for a newbie, to be suddenly tported home in the midst of ones retail therapy. I've also had to all but give up flying my dear Terra Ornithopter around for the reasons others have already gone into detail about.

On the other hand I'm bloody well sick of people who feel they can just wander into my house without calling out any sort of greeting beforehand. It's somehow disturbing to be deep into the object editor and suddenly hear typing and dolly back to discover some stranger standing in my bedroom. -.- My neighbors politely call out before entering and I don't want to have to lock my parcel to just my group or have to enter a whole list of people who may or may not ever visit me. Unfortunately it appears that it is too much to ask that people simply show some basic understanding of proper etiquette.

this still doesn't solve the problem of people wanting to explore and suddenly encountering your destructive teleporter script.

I remember when the northern continent opened up. I could drive all over the place. Now there are so many teleporter scripts that I got tired of loosing my car up there. Its nothing but urban sprawl now.

So we are left with three choices.

1. Ban exploring

2. Ban teleport scripts

3. create a surcharge that puts money into an account that can be with-drawn by people who had their computer harmed by teleporter scripts.

I believe you can see choice 2, which is prop 229 is the best way to go.

They make forcefields that keep people out. and these do not push or teleport they simply put up a barrier.

And I believe the lindens said that they limited the restricted zone on their version of the forcefield so that people could explore.

This is quite alarmist, Magnum. Please speak to the issue, as Jillian had some very valid points.

Jillian can speak to the issue without my help, but I personally feel many of these "features" do have their legitimate uses. llTeleportAvatarHome, for example, can function as the basis for spawn-based games - and I believe does so in many respects. Signage against these scripts, on the other hand, wouldn't help much if you're zooming along and the sign hasn't loaded yet. Furthermore, this is difficult to enforce.

Would you speak to these potential problems instead of rallying around the proposals? I'd like to hear your take on the matter.

At the end of the day, it's LL's call to make. And I don't feel these proposals would pass under their gaze without offering viable alternatives.

You pegged the chicken-little meter. Broke it's little needle.

1. Draconian
2. Draconian
3. F.U.D.

I have offered choice 4: Lay out a CLEAR BOUNDARY on where and how these tools can be used. People failing to work within these bounds are suspended or banned as need be. In fact, the first time osomeone fails to do use the script tools responsibly, the boundaries are reitterated to them just to make sure they know what's expected of them Mind you, we all agree to the TOS by using the service. Most of this system is already in place.

I don't buy this. You don't need this crap. Use the land tools. Make an av ban list. Works great. The avs you don't like get a red line. End of story.

Or make a group and group land, put all your friends in a group. Make the lot admit to group members only -- many people do this! Works great. No more people walking into your bedroom.

Why bounce avs, shoot avs to the next sim, send them back home, and just be a general annoying fuck on a sim (not to mention that the bounce scripts lag the sims, too).

I'm for negrating the buildings because I've just had a hell of enough of this, Cubey. I lose business, traffic, and tenants over these pernicious fucking things and I am hopping fucking mad about it.

I'm told that Lindens remove these scripts sometimes for some people; but they merely document them and call on owners to script in warnings, etc for others, and of course they never do it, and nothing ever changes.

Until they can concentrate on banning the use of them by banning people

I want builders to understand that when they build for some big club or business that uses these things, they are contributing to general mayhem in a community and the loss of my business and that of others with homes, stores, etc. so they need to feel our pain by being included in a "consumer boycott" in the form of a negrate.

I want innocent prefab makers to sit up and realize they are facilitating the use of bounce scripts by not taking a position on this. If a prefab maker will join me in negrating an owner, why, I'll unneg him.

I'm a big, big, BIG believer in the use of negrates because nothing else seems to work.

This still comes right back to the key issue: Enforcement. LL simply cannot spend their time policing all cases of abuse in this manner - a systemic solution is definitely preferable provided it works for everyone.

However, "choice 4" happily reflects how the current system (without systemic modification) should work. It's a pity it doesn't work that way - but such is the cost of freedom.

As to this:


Some people just don't care.

How do you propose we make them "own up" to this beyond simple negrating? Neg milage varies considerably as I see it - standard griefers really don't care much in my opinion.

Well, no, it's not perfect. However, some irresponsible scripts aren't being stumbled opon, and they could safely be ignored. LL would just have to go after the reported ones.
I've simply seen too many neat abilities for online communities slowly get taken away as the few morons abused them, until we were left with nothing but... well, IRC. I don't want that happeneing here.

Now, if LL would kindly offer more powerful land tools a more powerful group tools, then I'd be OK with having these script based security/privacy tools tossed out, as they would no longer be nessesary. Part of my problem with Magnum's proposal is I belive it is resonable to expect a certain amount of privacy that isn't provided by the land tools.

Yeah, the little monkeys.


But neg rating does have an effect on those who aren't greifing, and are just being either ignorant, bullheaded or both.

I am still waiting on an answer to teleport scripts that damage computers to the point that it knocks people out of SL for weeks on end. And it has happened.

Either pay a surcharge so that people who have their computers damaged by teleport scripts can fix them, or ban teleport scripts.

You also did not answer my reply of why the lindens have the barrier set so low... Which was to allow people to explore.

This leads me to believe you all do not like people exploring which is why I included it as answer 1, ban exploring. But exploring is how people find your stores etc.

Get rid of the teleport scripts. Simple as that

I'm not answering it becasue I don't bloody belive it. Let me be very clear: I have absolutely no reason to belive that the use or abuse of llTeleportAgentHome() has never nor will ever be the cause of damaged hardware.

Preposterous! I am in no way against exploring. I explore. I hate these damn scripts! However, I belive that people also have a right to thier privacy. I don't want to have to choose between one or the other - the world has never been that black or white, and SL isn't either!

That is one of, if not the, sickest, most childish, viscious, and bloodthirsty abuses of the rating system I have ever heard. It is absolutely no better than random neg-rate gankings by griefer-alts.

First of all, the lindens have spellled it out, many times:

You may not encourage mass neg-rate campaigns against an individual.

But on a broader scope, it's just lunacy. It would be like me encouraging my friends to go burn down clothing manufacturers because I hate pedophiles, on the grounds of "Childmolesters wear clothes, so clothing makers are facilitating it.".

Like Jillian, I just don't accept it as true. I'm not saying your lieing, don't get me wrong. But I've heard some absolutely impossible claims of how computers have died before, and the person absolutely believed they were right.



Fallacy of the False Dillema

Not really end of story. As you may or may not know, the land access tools are only effective up to a certain height above the land -- I think it's around 65 meters. If you have a building that's taller than that, like Abbotts Aerodrome, you simply can't use the land access tools to keep out greifers.

You know, I'd be happy losing the llEjectFromLand and llTeleportHome script functions *if* LL would extend the built-in access tools up to 768 meters -- the highest altitude where you can have objects. Sure that would lead to those land ban bars all the way up, but at least you can *see* them and at least you just bounce off them harmlessly instead of being ejected from both the land and your vehicle.




Be mad about it. For once you have something legitimate to be mad about. This abuse of other players has to stop. BUT THE CREATORS OF OBJECTS ON THE LAND ARE NOT INVOLVED IN ANY WAY. They have no say in the issue and no influence over the land owner's actions. You're only damaging innocent bystanders without any benefit to anyone.

If you're trying to bring builders on your side, attacking them isn't the way to do that.

Have you ever played with the "Sell passes for temporary access" option in the About Land->Access window?

When a user buys a pass and is on the affected land when the pass expires, the SL client gives them a time limit warning in the lower right corner which states that they should leave the land before the time limit expires or they will be ejected ( I don't recall, but I believe it gives them thirty seconds - one minute after the warning to leave).

If the avatar is still on the land when the time limit expires, they are ejected from the land in the same manner that llEjectFromLand() works.

I think the same technique should implemented as a part of llEjectFromLand() and llTeleportAgentHome(). When the function is called, the agent is warned that they will be ejected/teleported unless they leave the parcel in fifteen seconds (fifteen seems like a reasonable time limit to me). If they leave the parcel within the time limit nothing happens, if not they are ejected or teleported.

I only bring up the "Sell passes" option to highlight that this functionality (the time limit warning) is built into the client and servers already, so it shouldn't be hard to implement.

Same issue as the land ban... it only works up to about 65 meters. If your building is taller than that, it won't work.

I just had an idea, what if the land tools considered the position of large mass of prims?

Say...

You set your land to No-Access, you have a build at the bottom of the property, and a sky box at the top.

The Land automaticly calculates the total mass and grouping of prims, if the mass x ammount == x, then around that grouping a No-Access zone goes around that mass of prims. The zone would span to say... 20 sqm in every direction of the mass, unless that would go over the lines of the property, in which case it ends there, except up and down of course.

This way, you could have a large mass sky box, surrounded by No-Access, but, small prims (say randomly strewn small cubes, or a small build) would not get a No-Access because their total mass is not enough.

This would also allow for planes to fly between a No-Access skybox above and a No-Access home on the ground. While still giving the owner security.

Thoughts on this?

I'm sorry, but your reply doesn't make sense. I realize the "Sell passes" feature has a height restriction, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about implementing a time limit warning as a means to throttle back security scripts which use sensors and llEjectFromLand and llTeleportAgentHome.

As I stated, the only reason I bring up the "Sell passes" option was to mention that this sort of time limit warning was already implemented there.

Providing its technically feasable - I think its a great idea, Oz. I think security scripts - or even parcel permissions for that matter... would be slightly more paletable to folks if their use were limited to *indoors*

I've reposted this idea with a minor addition here: /13/64/43335/1.html#post459882

So as not to divert this topic too far off course.