More encompassing PUSH limitations / permissions

There needs to be a method to both hamper greifers while not disrupting the legitimate uses for the llPushObject() feature. There are a few instances where using push effects on objects can be a greifing tool but the majority of complaints happen when the effect is being applied to avatars. To deal with this aspect here is my proposal:

1. allow an option that is accessible BOTH in preferences and via script to have an avatar toggle off their -General- susceptibility to push effects. This option WOULD NOT be enabled by default and would require a given avatar to OP-OUT of push effects. Push effects are an explicite feature of the game, and there are MANY legitimate uses. We DO NOT need legitimate features disabled by default.

2. objects in an area can request permission via the normal script methods to ask for permission to push an avatar. This permission would automatically return success without user notification if they have not opted out. There is no need to annoy a user with a permission dialog while the option is still allowed. Attachments worn by a user would automatically recieve permission. Objects that an avatar is sitting on would only recieve automatic approval if owned by the sitter. Any object merely in-world, and sitting on an object NOT owned by the avatar would NOT recieve automatic permission.

3. There should also be a FIRST NOTIFICATION message, similar to the ones that describe other game features, when a user is first asked for push permission. The message should breifly let the user know the consequences of the choice. This would ensure new players understand exactly what a push effect is and let them understand the difference between what is abuse and what is not.

4. Land owners should have a flag they can enable that allows ONLY the land owners scripts to ignore a users preference. This should have a PUSH ENABLED icon similar to the UNSAFE, NO BUILD, NO SCRIPT icons that presently appear in the menu bar. Users should recieve a first notification style message the first time they enter PUSH ENABLED land.

5. Land owners should have a flag they can enable that allows ALL scripts to override a users push preferences. This would have a FULL PUSH icon displayed in place of the basic push enabled icon in the menu bar. This option would automatically be enabled on damage enabled land, but WOULD NOT require the land to be damage enabled thus keeping push effects seperate from combat specific stuff as desired by land owner. This option could have uses in various RP or other game areas. Or it could just be the land owners choice of how (s)he wishes their land to work. Of course a first notification message for this land option is needed also.

6. In situations where points 4 or 5 apply, scripts asking for permission should automatically receive it without user notification since the approval is gaurenteed based on the parcel settings. This would allow scripts to be written in a more uniform manner when intended to be used in a larger variety of game areas. No additional notification to the target is needed because the target would have already acknowledged the first notification messages and have the proper icon visible in the menu bar.

7. To tie in greif prevention when push effects are targetted on objects, an object should have a STATUS_NOPUSH flag it can set. This would make the object unpushable except by effects from the same owner and except in situations where points 4 or 5 apply and the object doesnt have authority to refuse being moved. Attachments with STATUS_NOPUSH set to true would carry that protection over to the avatar. This would be the script method referred to in point 1 above.

After reading over the other similar proposal threads options and opinions I think this set of choices would equally help both hamper abuse while not removing features for legitimate developers and I truely think it should be considered for implimentation. The ideas for a force() event are very good ideas but I DO NOT want any of them considered along with this proposal. Please keep discussions on-topic and vote if you feel it warrants it.

http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1386

EDIT 1:

8. I forgot to mention a land owners ability to set a 'BLOCK OUTSIDE PUSHES' is also needed. This has been mentioned hundreds of times and I think the idea is a given neccesity. But for clarity a landowner SHOULD be able to set both the PUSH-ENABLED and BLOCK-OUTSIDE-PUSHES options at same time. Its quite acceptible and in the cases of gravity movers nessisary for a land owner to have the ability to push visitors while still blocking any potential greif scripts.

9. The block outside pushes option should prevent any outside script from pushing any object regardless of the owner. But it SHOULD NOT prevent an o utside script from pushing its OWN owner. This allows for flight enhancer scripts to still properly function. The exception to point 9 is if the land is also NO_FLY then no outside script should effect anything. This would allow RP areas disabling flight to truely have control of their land.

Since the question was posted in the 'answers' forum that means cant reply there with user ideas. But this post:

/139/bc/108565/1.html

is a prime example of WHY we need these push controls. The suggestions for land owner control mentioned above would also be applicable to calls of llRezObject(). Land owners need the ability to limit pushes to one of: unrestricted, group-only or owner-only. Regardless of choice anyone on a banlist should not be able to rez an object in the given parcel. An object rezzed OUTSIDE the parcel should return to owner as it enters land AT ANY HEIGHT that it is restricted from. Meaning if the parcel is pushl imited OR rez limited bullets should autoreturn to owner INSTANTLY.

A step further was that on the first item returned the offender owuld get a warning. And if any further attempts during the same login session occured the system should generate an abuse report that is sent to any of the landowners currently online so they can file it same way that currently works with bullets that make contact.

I don't think a landowner should be able to push me against my will unless their land is set to damage-enabled. I've had aircraft pushed by a landowner who was over his own land. In my opinion, if I am not over damage land, I should have the absolute right to decide whether or not myself and my objects are susceptible. If I miss out on someone's cool llPushObject() effect, it's my problem, and I can make myself susceptible to it if I want.

Damage and combat are totally seperate concept from pushing. Pushing can be used IN combat yes. And damage enabled land should ALSO enable unrestricted push effects. But the push effect itself can be useful for legitimate features when absolutely no desire for combat exists. Gravity tubes / elevators being the best example.

That is why instead of requiring DAMAGE to be turned on, a land owner should be able to choose one of the above options of PUSH status for the parcel. And that status would be readily visible at a glance by looking at the icons in the menubar.

Keep concepts of combat (damage) and push effects seperate. They are NOT the same thing at all.



The mass instances where someone is pushed against their will is NOT by a landowner over that persons own land. It is by random people using weapons outside a combat sim on completely random land. The opt out feature is still included in this proposal and would work for pushes that are not the land owners. Thus a land owner can still protect his ability to set HIS PAID FOR LAND up the way (s)he wants and you STILL get your protection.

If I don't want to be susceptible to that, why do you have a problem with it? I honestly wouldn't care if none of those things ever worked again because personally I think they're worthless, as we can all fly. Anyone who wants to use that stuff is free to allow themselves to be pushable. So we all get what we want.

I never said they were. I'm just saying combat should be the only way someone's land can override my preference.

Even if it's occasional, it's a good enough reason to let me opt out of it.

What about letting me choose whether to be susceptible to land owner push? Seems it's my avatar, and I should be the one to choose whether or not someone else can push me, even if it is their land.

Once. You had this happen once, you said. And it was at the very least months ago.

Something that has happened once, and hasn't been repeated, is the worst possible reason to implement a restrictive policy.
We already had this discussion.

If the only option is that you are either pushable everywhere or you're pushable nowhere, then everyone's going to opt for being pushable nowhere.

And if nobody's pushable anywhere, then there's no longer any cool llPushObject() effects for everyone, because there's no point implementing them if they don't work. So what you're saying is "you don't want push effects to work".

Oh, hey, you are.
I can't believe you're saying that! Huns, you're one of the premier aircraft designers in SL. If gravity tubes are worthless because "we can all fly", then aircraft are worthless because "we can all fly".

I make rideable steam trains. Slow physical vehicles. There are about 80 of them scattered across SL now. The problems with (abuse of) llPushObject() are so bad that I have suspended all further development on the train, and other trensport systems until LL Fixes the problem. I have even considered pulling the train off the market.

Some may claim it is an occasional problem. It is NOT. It is way too common that people use llPushObject() to disrupt others normal SL activities by using push-guns. We also now have ignorant noobs using 'Av Shields' which automatically push any nearby vehicle into orbit. Why? The have a shield to protect them from push guns! The situation escalates!

I have spent hours attempting to write protection and recovery code into the Steam Train. All to deal with LL's reluctance to limit llPushObject().

At the last Town Hall Meeting I asked this question:

Indiscriminate use of llPushObject() is becoming a real headache to vehicle riders in SL. Global deployment of Av shields and push weapons that are untraceable because of lack of abuse tracking messages are resulting in termination of development projects and escalation of retaliatiatory assult. What plans does Linden Labs have to prevent these problems caused by llPushObject()?

This question, and Philip Linden's response is not present in written transcript on the forum. Censorship by someone?? I have not yet had the time to listen through the podcast to see if it is in there.

By memory, and greatly simplifying, Philip agreed that it is a problem and LL should have done something about some time ago.

I wrote an email to Philip, as he requested, explaing the problems of llPushObject(), and suggested several methods to limit it whilst protecting its legitimate use. I also sent him pictures of the results of llPushObject() abuse. So far I have received no response.

I myself have been working on an automatic tram system and I've simply moved to nonphys.

Not just because of griefers though, though that is a major concern - the major problem is that ground vehicles are rubbish. In fact, if you don't want to make bullets and explosions, most of the physics engine is rubbish. Sorry, but it is, it's not reliable and causes too many bizarre effects.

Pushes are absolutely the least of my worries. Occasionally I have somebody pushing one of my balloons in some odd direction, but it's way more common that the physics engine itself will screw me up.

Given my experience since the update, actually, even moving to nonphys isn't reliable. Just trying to use multiple llSetRots produced untold annoyance on Friday night, and I've not been back since. It's utterly turned me off the idea.

My proposition only restricts people who want the presumptive right to push others, even if they don't want to be pushed. I fail to see how this is a problem.

You didn't really convince me of anything, except that you want the right to push people because they happen to be on your land. I still don't think that's a good enough reason, since I could just make myself susceptible any time I wanted to use your elevators.

I guess the answer to the elevator problem would be to have an option on the client to allow push by parcel owner's objects. I certainly have no reason to argue against that.

What I'm saying is that it should be my choice whether these effects work on me or not. I really don't get why you are so wound up about this. If your elevator doesn't work on me, it's not your problem, it's mine.

Elevators are worthless to me. However, I don't have a problem with other people using them, hence why I want individuals to be able to choose whether they're susceptible or not. From a utilitarian standpoint, aircraft are quite worthless, unless you are trying to get somewhere above 768 meters. I play with them in sandboxes because they're fun.

Your position restricts people who want to be consentually pushed but don't want to be susceptible to griefing, even if they're on land where the landowner agrees with them.
More importantly, I want to allow other landowners to push me. Without having to take any special action to do so, and without making myself susceptible to third party push on their land.
In a previous discussion I proposed almost exactly that, as a compromise. Other people have made similar suggestions. They didn't seem to make any impact on you... you continue to argue that we must have a complete and absolute push block, and insisted that only enabling damage on the land should override it for anyone who's blocking push.
What I'm saying is that I want to allow any landowner to push me, but I don't want to allow anyone else to push me on push-safe land, and I don't want to allow any random griefer to push the no-mod physical animals I've bought on my own land.
Then it'd be great if you'd modify your desired policy to one that actually allows someone to say 'I want to be able to use gravity effects set up by the landowner, but I don't want to be pushed by random griefers'.From a utilitarian standpoint both elevator and airplanes are conveniences and amusements. You don't need them to move you over 768 meters, you don't need them to move you from the first floor to the second floor. The point is that almost everything in SL is in the same category. I like airplanes, I like gravity effects, I like custom movement scripts, they're all great. Anything that makes them less effective is bad, whether it's a global push block that you can't turn off without opening yourself to griefing, or security scripts that unsit you immediately, or any other short-sighted restriction or misuse of the game.

And I disagree with you about the value of aircraft, by the way... I seem to have a higher opinion ofthem than you, which rather surprises me. I've flown from Lusk to Caldbeck and Arches to Ahern at 50m on Chage McCoy's Mehve and my Coonplane (a version of Cubey's sample plane tweaked for low-speed maneuverability) without any great difficulty. Low altitude low-speed flight is both practical and fun.

Bumping this topic as IMHO it needs more discussion and Linden attention.
Adding
* Stop griefers with push guns (forum topic)
to my list of vital improvements for SL

==== In support of Push limits
106 votes : http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=389
012 votes : http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=847
067 votes : http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1102
047 votes : http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1386
342 votes : http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1263
002 votes : http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=209

That's *6* proposals on this topic at least so far.... and over 570 votes, as more come in all the time.

The only reason that ideas about a safe way to combat push abuse haven't demanded a response from LL yet is that no single proposal has 500 votes to force a response, which is as much a flaw in the SL voting system as it is lack of organisation.

But, it should be clear that they have over 500 votes total and that abuse of push weapons is a substantial problem with SL. I believe that the ideas proposed by Seronis Zagato are the best solution so far to the problem of preventing push abuse and giving control back to residents and landowners.

So yeah, LL, please take notice

bump

With all the new greivances due to registration laxing, anyone else thinking this might be a good idea now?

No.

There's a simple solution to problems caused by unvalidated registrations.

This proposal was made well before the registration issue. And is useful no matter what registration method is used.

Well, you asked

and my response was no. I didn't think it was a good idea previously, and I don't think it's any better an idea now.

Thats fine then. Forgot you had posted before though after re-reading your preivous post I didnt see any reasonings you were against any specific feature. Could you give some constructive critique?

Frak. Now PVP is gone. Any more hitting the bandwagon?

The physics engine *may* be faulty. Even if it is, it seems to work decently well for most people most of the time.... and you don't hear many people screaming "we need the physics engine fixed, NOW" in the way you hear "we need limits on push, NOW".

Yes, the physics engine may need fixing too. But that doesn't mean we don't need push fixing too. And more people complain about push, IIRC, so there's a democratic case for handling it first.



True, we could go back to requiring validation for all accounts. Similarly, I'm worried about my computer's security, so the best solution is to turn it off. I'm worried about bad weather, so I should stay indoors all the time.
I *could* do these things, but there are other concerns that outweigh it... the sensible solution is to allow unvalidated registrations but provide tools to sim/parcel owners to block unvalidated accounts from their land - which, IIRC, LL is now working on.

Also, I'd personally like push limits even if all registrations were validated.... for the simple reason that with the removal of "view pvp abuse" it clearly seems to be the residents' job to protect themselves and their land from griefers.

AGreed Angel. For all the ranting i've had against open registration its due to the fact we dont have tools to deal with it. Add in LSL verification of account status so i can tell who is a potential griefing alt, add in my ability to limit pushes, AND the ability ot detect / preemptively counteract their force, add in better management of permissions and I would be happy. But all these security features needed implimented no matter what. And this is one of the features that needs considered.

From forum topic 112642:


llRequestPermission(PERMISSION_PUSH); would be automatically granted if the relavant setting was 'yes', automatically denied if the relavant setting was 'no', and would pop up a "do you wish to allow _____ to push you?" dialog box if set to 'ask', with options "yes" and "no".

Nice angel. Idea officially stolen (borrowed) for this proposal as a whole.

Personally I think that 'damage' should not imply 'full push'. You can have push without damage, so why not damage without push?

Because launching is a part of combat because certain effects like concusion grenades that are intrinsic to combat should work logically. Of course there may be some scenerios where non push eligible combat could make sense so sure, make them totally seperate.