*serious* banning tools for all group/estate/parcel admins to fight griefing/spam

I'm going to take a "devils advocate" position here....(and remember my point of view is after being in SL for about a month).

SL would not be the same if "griefing" were somehow abolished. The reality of SL and RL is while most ppl can get along, invariably some people are never going to get along. Nobody likes conflict, drama, or confrontation....but I'm not sure creating an environment where there are none of these things is really as great an ideal as some might think.

I should disclaim again for a second...I am new. In the last 30+ days I've put almost as many ppl on my friends list....and nobody on mute or ban. I have seen very few instances of "griefing" myself. The only problem I see with the way things are set up in SL now is the ability to make "unconfirmed" accounts.....I think if they changed that "griefers" would have to be way more responsible about who they attacked and where, instead of being anonymous like they are now.

I think it would be a terrible shame to do much more to change things....I'm sorry to hear "griefer" attacks are so common for some.I dont think the above mentioned proposals are an efficient solution.

Abolishing griefing won't abolish conflict, drama, or confrontation. There's more than enough of that without "griefing" being involved.

Oh yes, one more thing I'd suggest. Access and ban lists should only be visible for people who are actually on them, just like parcel media URLs are only visible for people who can edit them. There are two reasons for this, one principled and one practical. The principled one is that fundamentally, who is banned/allowed on a parcel is a private matter for the owner of that parcel. The practical reason is that if bans are tagged with the name of the person who set them, then griefers may seek revenge on that person, or otherwise make bans personal when they are simply enforcement of already stated rules.

As for access lists, these too should be private, simply because if the area is meant to be private to the point of only allowing certain avatars in it, then it makes sense to give them privacy over membership, too.

So yeah, basic privacy protections for ban/allow lists.

Besides those people already know you can leave the group and then do the harm........So hence this would not work.............Besides not all people in a group are bad.

I dislike griefers a LOT. Especially since they have been showing up at locations where child avatars are located and dropping smut on them.

However, banning an entire group because one griefer is on is not a good idea. Any griefer could join a publicly accessible group and then cause trouble just to get that group banned.

The only fair way to deal with griefers is individually. Find out what address they're logging in from, and then ban that address from the SL server.

I'd still like to push for llInviteToGroup(key id) and llEjectFromGroup(key id) functions, these would allow for much better group management of land. Especially in relation to renting, since the renter doesn't own the land it is hard for them to police it as they have to go via someone with the right group access. While if you could just pop them in a group where they can do as they require themselves, it solves many issues.

Changes on the FVT have broken the old proposal link.
The new, working proposal link is : prop 1632.

My first vote ever goes to this proposal

Update:
I found a post by Andrew Linden explaining why LL has not yet considered the "avatars without access to a parcel cannot see its contents and vice versa" idea. It, apparently, is complex to put in place because you have to find a way to show people who can, and who cannot, see/hear them.

More details :
/139/8a/132390/1.html#post1253600