Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

STATUS_BLOCK_PUSH flag, please

Michi Lumin
Sharp and Pointy
Join date: 14 Oct 2003
Posts: 1,793
03-22-2006 11:00
From: Andrew Linden
It should probably be settable for the agent, maybe by script only (rather than UI).


Andrew, the only situation I worry about there is; you turn off scripts in an area temporarily to lock down abuse (griefing objects, etc) people couldn't set themselves non-pushable.

I'd much rather see this in the UI. (as well as script.) I think it'd solve a hell of a lot of problems overall. Also removes the situation where essentially all 'newbies' would be pushable, and become de-facto targets for this kind of abuse. Don't want to "concentrate" all the pushable avs to being newbies just by limiting nonpushability to people with scripting experience.
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
03-22-2006 11:26
From: Huns Valen
How is it a major problem for someone to click a button on their client or type a command in chat?
Because it's something they'd have to do over and over and over again until they finally quit bothering and gripe to me about it and so I take it out (I'm not in the business of deliberately annoying people visiting my land, you know) and yet another cool feature in a build will end up going away.
From: someone
How is that MORE of a problem than jerks who think it's funny to toss other peoples' vehicles around?
Because (for the specific case where the 'jerk' is a landowner) the latter's not actually a serious problem.
From: someone
It hasn't happened to you, fine, but it has happened to me.
I didn't say it doesn't happen, I didn't even say it hasn't happened to me, I said that it's not a serious problem. Third-party push might be, but landowner push certainly isn't.
From: someone
I have no recourse if my vehicle is pushed because I don't get a PVP notice and therefore have nothing to AR.
Why do you have nothing to AR? You said you were pushed by the landowner over his land. If you know that, you know who it was. If you know who it was, you can AR them.

If you don't even know it was the landowner, then why do you think landowner push is the problem?
From: someone
This is not something I've seen with security scripts but it's something I see all the time with shields. They don't differentiate between a bullet and a vehicle, and will try to orbit anything physical that comes within 96 meters.
And that's most likely going to be third party push, and AR-able.
From: someone
'Cept that one time a landowner did that to me.
One time?

You're one of the premier aircraft designers in SL. You must have hundreds of times the flying time I do. And in all that time you can only say that you've been subject to landowner push once? And on the basis of that incident you think it's just fine to say I have to turn on damage on my land to let people naturally use my gravity effects the way they were designed?

And it wouldn't even solve the problem, because in that one case where you had a problem, the guy could have turned damage on and thrown you into orbit anyway?

Meanwhile, some idiot has written a security script that does an llUnSit() and *then* warns you that you'll be ejected in 30 seconds, which means you're pretty much guarenteed to still be trying to get back to your plane when the llEjectFromLand() hits. That is the kind of problem you should be worrying about, not a one-time incident that your proposal wouldn't have prevented.
Ordinal Malaprop
really very ordinary
Join date: 9 Sep 2005
Posts: 4,607
03-22-2006 11:55
I kind of feel as if I should write a whole series of very very annoying scripts that could be used to grief people that don't use pushes, just to illustrate the point. Pick a function, any function. Except that somebody might then use them. But there are certainly plenty of people out there who are just as good scripters as I am, or better, who would be quite happy to write such things.

For that matter you can harass people with just object builds, quite easily, and there's no defence against that apart from buying your own sim.
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
How about a force() event?
03-23-2006 10:16
Here's another idea, suggested in another thread... a force() event would allow you to react to a push intelligently.
CODE
timer()
{
saved_pos = llGetPos();
}

state_entry()
{
saved_pos = llGetPos();
llSetTimerEvent(1.0);
}

on_rez()
{
saved_pos = llGetPos();
}

force(key pusher, vector impulse)
{
if(llVecMag(impulse) < MAX_OK_FORCE) return; // allow push elevators
llApplyImpulse(-impulse); // cancel push
if(saved_pos == ZERO_VECTOR) return; // shouldn't happen
if(llVecDist(llGetPos, saved_pos) > 1)
llMoveToTarget(saved_pos, ...);
llOwnerSay("Blocked push from "+llKey2Name(llGetOwnerKey(pusher)));
}
Zepp Zaftig
Unregistered Abuser
Join date: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 470
03-24-2006 18:11
From: Argent Stonecutter
Here's another idea, suggested in another thread... a force() event would allow you to react to a push intelligently.
I think that's a neat idea.
_____________________
:cool: :p ;) :D
Huns Valen
Don't PM me here.
Join date: 3 May 2003
Posts: 2,749
03-27-2006 23:54
From: Argent Stonecutter
Because it's something they'd have to do over and over and over again until they finally quit bothering and gripe to me about it and so I take it out (I'm not in the business of deliberately annoying people visiting my land, you know) and yet another cool feature in a build will end up going away.

We have to press 'f' over and over and over and over again to fly. We have to press start/stop on parcel audio/movie controls over and over and over and over again if we want to control audio/video to our clients. We have to spend thousands of seconds each year mashing arrow keys to walk around. So what?

From: someone
Because (for the specific case where the 'jerk' is a landowner) the latter's not actually a serious problem.
I don't see someone who deliberately opts out of push not being able to use your elevators as a serious problem. They can allow push again if they want.

From: someone
I didn't say it doesn't happen, I didn't even say it hasn't happened to me, I said that it's not a serious problem. Third-party push might be, but landowner push certainly isn't.
I don't see why it matters if the pusher happens to own the land, even after everything you've said. If I want to opt out, I should be able to.

From: someone
Why do you have nothing to AR? You said you were pushed by the landowner over his land. If you know that, you know who it was. If you know who it was, you can AR them.
But without the PVP dialog, I have no proof, so what are they going to do?

From: someone
If you don't even know it was the landowner, then why do you think landowner push is the problem?
I don't think landowner push is the problem, I think push PERIOD is the problem.

From: someone
You're one of the premier aircraft designers in SL. You must have hundreds of times the flying time I do. And in all that time you can only say that you've been subject to landowner push once? And on the basis of that incident you think it's just fine to say I have to turn on damage on my land to let people naturally use my gravity effects the way they were designed?
No, I'm saying it should be my right to opt out of whatever push scripts you have, even if they are mild. If I do opt out and your stuff doesn't work, well, so what? I did the opting out!

From: someone
And it wouldn't even solve the problem, because in that one case where you had a problem, the guy could have turned damage on and thrown you into orbit anyway?
He would also have made himself susceptible to me immediately turning around (or teleporting to the ground, if I was orbited) and gunning him down.

From: someone
Meanwhile, some idiot has written a security script that does an llUnSit() and *then* warns you that you'll be ejected in 30 seconds, which means you're pretty much guarenteed to still be trying to get back to your plane when the llEjectFromLand() hits. That is the kind of problem you should be worrying about, not a one-time incident that your proposal wouldn't have prevented.
I'm in favor of adding a mandatory warning and delay to those functions, but I don't see why that should occupy so much of my attention that I have none left to focus on asking for llPushObject() reform.

From: someone
Here's another idea, suggested in another thread... a force() event would allow you to react to a push intelligently.

This is a good idea in theory, and I think a force() event is a good idea in general, but there will be a short delay between the application of force and that function's ability to apply a counterforce - during which time you've already been moved, possibly clear into the next sim. If LSL could have a special case put in that causes that event to FINISH firing before the force is actually applied, and if it still works even over no-script land, it could work. However, your avatar or your vehicle would have to have that in there for it to work.

Similar problem with physical damping shields: even with a very low tau, someone with llPushObject with a very high impulse can still knock you into the next sim.

How about this for an idea:
[_] Susceptible to all push
[_] Susceptible to push from landowner's scripts while over landowner's land
[_] Not susceptible to any push
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
03-28-2006 12:09
From: Huns Valen
We have to press 'f' over and over and over and over again to fly.

1. Actually, you don't, you can fly automatically when you push "up".
2. Pushing "f", "Home", or "Up" is less intrusive than typing a command in chat or changing your preferences.

But in any case, one of the common ways llPushObject() is used on avatars is in gravity elevators to allow them to move up and down without flying.
From: someone
We have to press start/stop on parcel audio/movie controls over and over and over and over again if we want to control audio/video to our clients.
And that doesn't actually work: streaming audio sometimes turns on without properly updating the buttons so you have to turn it on and off to turn it off. Which is one of the reasons I normally disable streaming audio and video completely and only turn it on when there's something people specifically indicate is interesting. A perfect example of how an intrusive interface makes a feature less useful.
From: someone
We have to spend thousands of seconds each year mashing arrow keys to walk around.
Hence mouselook and the requests for mouse-only mouselook movement or waypoint navigation.
From: someone
I don't see someone who deliberately opts out of push not being able to use your elevators as a serious problem. They can allow push again if they want.
See above.
From: someone
I don't see why it matters if the pusher happens to own the land, even after everything you've said.
But you have already stated that it does make a difference, by saying that it should be allowed in damage-enabled zones. The only difference between your proposal any mine is that mine doesn't require enabling damage to let the landowner override your selection. That's it.
From: someone
But without the PVP dialog, I have no proof, so what are they going to do?
Then the problem that you need fixed is that you can't detect a push. I've suggested a fix for that.
From: someone
I don't think landowner push is the problem, I think push PERIOD is the problem.
Anything you can do with push, you can do with other kinetic functions, it just takes a little more scripting and is even more annoying for the recipient.
From: someone
He would also have made himself susceptible to me immediately turning around (or teleporting to the ground, if I was orbited) and gunning him down.
And then you find that he's standing on a non-damage-enabled parcel on his land running a pusher script four meters away by remote control.
From: someone
I'm in favor of adding a mandatory warning and delay to those functions, but I don't see why that should occupy so much of my attention that I have none left to focus on asking for llPushObject() reform.
I don't see that llPushObject() reform should even be a major concern any more. Abuse of llPushObject() has become really rare over the past few months, presumably due to improved enforcement.
From: someone

[_] Susceptible to all push
[_] Susceptible to push from landowner's scripts while over landowner's land
[_] Not susceptible to any push
Make the second one "susceptible to push at landowner's option", because allowing outside push and performing the push are different operations... and make that the default.
Huns Valen
Don't PM me here.
Join date: 3 May 2003
Posts: 2,749
03-28-2006 16:58
From: Argent Stonecutter
1. Actually, you don't, you can fly automatically when you push "up".
2. Pushing "f", "Home", or "Up" is less intrusive than typing a command in chat or changing your preferences.

But in any case, one of the common ways llPushObject() is used on avatars is in gravity elevators to allow them to move up and down without flying.
And that doesn't actually work: streaming audio sometimes turns on without properly updating the buttons so you have to turn it on and off to turn it off. Which is one of the reasons I normally disable streaming audio and video completely and only turn it on when there's something people specifically indicate is interesting. A perfect example of how an intrusive interface makes a feature less useful.
Hence mouselook and the requests for mouse-only mouselook movement or waypoint navigation.
See above.
I do not find that asking someone to expend .01 calories pressing a button or typing a command is an unreasonable request, especially if it is to get out of a sate that they deliberately got into.

From: someone
But you have already stated that it does make a difference, by saying that it should be allowed in damage-enabled zones. The only difference between your proposal any mine is that mine doesn't require enabling damage to let the landowner override your selection. That's it.
The damage enabled land thing gives me a chance to retaliate, as one would expect over damage land. If I'm over safe land, I have no chance to retaliate without violating the TOS. This would make it considerably less convenient for the landowner to be a jerk. Not impossible, but less convenient.

From: someone
Then the problem that you need fixed is that you can't detect a push. I've suggested a fix for that.
I see the problem as being that they can push me in the first place. This is proactive, ARs are reactive. This proposal, if implemented, would save time and effort for both users and Linden Lab.

From: someone
Anything you can do with push, you can do with other kinetic functions, it just takes a little more scripting and is even more annoying for the recipient.
If they can't push me, they'll have to slam me with an object. This is somewhat harder to accomplish, and is susceptible to detection and evasion. By making it harder to push people or their physical things, it is also made less attractive, ergo reducing the amount of trouble. Therefore, it's worth it.

From: someone
And then you find that he's standing on a non-damage-enabled parcel on his land running a pusher script four meters away by remote control.
That is one possibility, but the owner might not do that, in which case I can retaliate. Or, they might slip up and forget to turn off damage after I'm gone, and the second they do that, they run into an invisible cube with 100% damage that I've set to follow them around. Or, I might return the next day and catch them over a damage enabled part of their property and cap them then. See? It's more trouble.

From: someone
I don't see that llPushObject() reform should even be a major concern any more. Abuse of llPushObject() has become really rare over the past few months, presumably due to improved enforcement.
It is still a problem for myself and others.

From: someone
Make the second one "susceptible to push at landowner's option", because allowing outside push and performing the push are different operations... and make that the default.
I would make susceptibility to all push to be the default, since it would be consistent with the way things are now. In the future, after any kinks show up and are ironed out, some other default behavior could be implemented for new users. I would pop up a dialog the first time a person (or a person's objects in the same region) are pushed that asks what level of susceptibility they want.
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
03-29-2006 13:21
From: Huns Valen
I do not find that asking someone to expend .01 calories pressing a button or typing a command is an unreasonable request, especially if it is to get out of a sate that they deliberately got into.
It doesn't matter whether its "reasonable" or "unreasonable". The question is whether inconveniencing everyone using kinetic functions in builds is too great a cost to prevent something that even one of the premier aircraft designers in SL can only recall happening once in all his years of flying.
From: someone
If they can't push me, they'll have to slam me with an object.
The common multitool "river cage" script is trivially modifiable for this.
From: someone
Or, they might slip up and forget to turn off damage after I'm gone, and the second they do that, they run into an invisible cube with 100% damage that I've set to follow them around. Or, I might return the next day and catch them over a damage enabled part of their property and cap them then. See? It's more trouble.
o_O *boggle*

Look, I've got 4500sm on Noonkkot. Some guy with 16000 or so in the next sim has an abusively stupid non-push security script that regularly gets me if I take off in the wrong direction. I ARed him, and got no response, so what do I do?

I pointed my runway in a different direction.

Life's too short.
Huns Valen
Don't PM me here.
Join date: 3 May 2003
Posts: 2,749
03-30-2006 00:10
From: Argent Stonecutter
It doesn't matter whether its "reasonable" or "unreasonable". The question is whether inconveniencing everyone using kinetic functions in builds
I don't see how it inconveniences you, since presumably you won't opt out. I also don't see how it inconveniences someone who opts out on purpose.

From: someone
is too great a cost to prevent something that even one of the premier aircraft designers in SL can only recall happening once in all his years of flying.
It did indeed happen once, and I don't see why it ever need happen again, and I'm probably not the only person who's been pushed by the owner of some land I've flown other.

From: someone
The common multitool "river cage" script is trivially modifiable for this.
It'll have to catch me first, unlike llPushObject, which works right away. I've done tracking AI for missiles and a security bot in SL and I can tell you that "target leading" is not trivial to write.
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
03-30-2006 09:50
From: Huns Valen
I don't see how it inconveniences you, since presumably you won't opt out.
Why would you assume that?

If this was implemented, I would expect a LOT more push griefing from griefers who argue "if they didn't want to get pushed, they'd have opted out". As it is, one of the few times I got pushed was because I'd rezzed a translucent ball around me (I was working on a worn vehicle) and they figured it was OK to take a potshot because I was wearing a shield (which, obviously, I wasn't).
From: someone
It did indeed happen once, and I don't see why it ever need happen again,
I don't see why something that's only happened once to someone who's a likely target (simply because of who you are) needs to be considered in policy at all.
From: someone
I'm probably not the only person who's been pushed by the owner of some land I've flown other.
Possibly not, but this isn't like free flight in general where security scripts are a problem for everyone. If you put you and Cubey Terra and Jillian Callahan and Chage McCoy and Apotheosis Silverman together... would you be able to come up with an average of one incident per person between the lot of you?
From: someone
It'll have to catch me first, unlike llPushObject, which works right away. I've done tracking AI for missiles and a security bot in SL and I can tell you that "target leading" is not trivial to write.
Tracking someone who's actively avoiding being shot *and* folowing a restrained policy (staying in the combat zone/over your land and (presumably) not going off in hot pursuit)? That's hard.

Tracking someone who's not anticipating trouble when you're not concerned about whether they're still over your land when you bobble them or whether you inconvenience anyone else? There's existing code that can be used. I once (as an experiment) leashed someone and then took off in your cool Cygnus autogyro (since that was the highest performing plane I owned). Within a couple of seconds they were glued to the fuselage. I could outrun the leash at higher speeds, but when you're crossing a sim a second nobody's going to be shooting you down with Hand of Satan either.
Alazarin Mondrian
Teh Trippy Hippie Dragon
Join date: 4 Apr 2005
Posts: 1,549
05-15-2006 12:20
I think Ordinal has a point that anything can become a griefing tool. And I can see how the ability to disable push would be a griefer's best friend.

Scenario: Griefer N00benstein gets tooled up with a collection of super powerful push weapons and such like, toggles off his own susceptibilty to push and goes on a merry rampage blowing away anyone and anything that hasn't been nailed to the floor. Not a million miles from the current 'practice' of sitting on safe land while shooting into damage-enabled land.

The logical outcome in such a situation would be an inevitable 'race to the bottom' in which it becomes the norm for everyone to have push disabled. So we can forget about elevators, diving boards, skydive launchers, rivers with currents, funfair rides and all the fun and neat stuff that uses push.

At least that's how it looks to me, tho I may have missed something in the fine print everyone's been bandying about.
_____________________
My stuff on Meta-Life: http://tinyurl.com/ykq7nzt
http://www.myspace.com/alazarinmobius
http://slurl.com/secondlife/Crescent/72/98/116
Ordinal Malaprop
really very ordinary
Join date: 9 Sep 2005
Posts: 4,607
05-15-2006 12:42
Ooh, thank you, I just clicked on this and the new post is referring to me :)

But yes, I'm still of the opinion that push block is a bad idea. (I could cope with a parcel push block, but I still don't think it's going to solve anything.) Concentrating on one function is just putting sticking plasters over the wound, and another wound will open up somewhere else. What we really need is enforcement.

Proper modern griefers don't go around with pushguns anyway, they use bombs that degrade sim performance, like rezzing hundreds of physics beachballs in Port Caledon. You just can't defend against that sort of thing without crippling the sim with safety measures.
Aodhan McDunnough
Gearhead
Join date: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 1,518
05-15-2006 13:05
I'm all for enforcement. However if a good *prevention* system can be designed then it produces a vastly superior situation.

Enforcement operates on "after the fact" where the crime has already been committed and the victim has been griefed.

A well-designed preventive measure makes enforcement unnecessary with respect to the item being controlled.

Note I emphasize "well-designed" because it's not a simple matter to just cripple a function that a lot of people like to use. Difficulty of figuring out how to cripple it in just the right way such that the good uses are still there and the griefers are out in the cold does not preclude the existence of such a preventive measure.
Seronis Zagato
Verified Resident
Join date: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 454
More encompassing PUSH limitations / permissions
05-15-2006 16:12
/13/36/106954/1.html#post1039564

I read and re-read the various points and opinions made by everyone here and put an hour into thinking of what would give users greif prevention measures while still maintaining a land owners ability to design legitimate builds that take advantage of the push feature in non greifing ways. Please read the proposal linked above. Feel free to comment where you think a weakness is. But if you are gonna say the method wouldnt work then you need to EXPLAIN in detail exactly what aspect of greif is not being dealt with while still maintaining the legitimate uses.

Please DO NOT argue a point unless you have a solution to provide that doesnt break the game.
Timeless Prototype
Humble
Join date: 14 Aug 2004
Posts: 216
05-28-2006 02:23
From: Argent Stonecutter
Here's another idea, suggested in another thread... a force() event would allow you to react to a push intelligently.
CODE
timer()
{
saved_pos = llGetPos();
}

state_entry()
{
saved_pos = llGetPos();
llSetTimerEvent(1.0);
}

on_rez()
{
saved_pos = llGetPos();
}

force(key pusher, vector impulse)
{
if(llVecMag(impulse) < MAX_OK_FORCE) return; // allow push elevators
llApplyImpulse(-impulse); // cancel push
if(saved_pos == ZERO_VECTOR) return; // shouldn't happen
if(llVecDist(llGetPos, saved_pos) > 1)
llMoveToTarget(saved_pos, ...);
llOwnerSay("Blocked push from "+llKey2Name(llGetOwnerKey(pusher)));
}

I endorse this idea. It brings accountability in where we have none at the moment. I also agree we could use a BLOCK_PUSH status.

Slight modification though, as many force events could be raised in a short space of time, move it towards how the touch and sensor models work:
CODE

...
push(integer num_detected)
{
integer i;
for (i = 0; i < num_detected; i++)
{
// Debug output only, not really a good example.
llOwnerSay("Force applied by UUID: " + (string)llDetectedPusher(i) + ", force applied: " + (string)llDetectedForce(i) + ", rotational force applied: " + (string)llDetectedRotForce(i));
}
}
...
_____________________
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
05-28-2006 13:32
That would be llDetectedKey() of course.
Timeless Prototype
Humble
Join date: 14 Aug 2004
Posts: 216
05-28-2006 13:45
From: Argent Stonecutter
That would be llDetectedKey() of course.

lol, exactly! Sheesh, burnout can take you by surprise sometimes.

Thanks. llDetectedKey().
_____________________
Huns Valen
Don't PM me here.
Join date: 3 May 2003
Posts: 2,749
05-28-2006 16:09
From: Alazarin Mondrian
The logical outcome in such a situation would be an inevitable 'race to the bottom' in which it becomes the norm for everyone to have push disabled. So we can forget about elevators, diving boards, skydive launchers, rivers with currents, funfair rides and all the fun and neat stuff that uses push.
Solution: Turn off push susceptibility if you don't want to be pushed. If you want to use an elevator or be pushed by a current, turn it on again. In my own experience, I get pushed by stuff that I don't want to be pushed by many times more often than I'm pushed by anything that I want to be pushed by. I haven't needed to use an elevator all year, but I find myself being pushed almost weekly.
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
05-29-2006 10:08
From: Huns Valen
Solution: Turn off push susceptibility if you don't want to be pushed. If you want to use an elevator or be pushed by a current, turn it on again.
You know that's not going to happen. It's hard enough to get some people to turn of shields so they can ride aircraft, even. If there's something you can turn on that makes you completely push-proof then nobody's going to turn it on to go up an elevator... even if they think the elevator's cool.

Look, what if I was proposing a solution to griefing that would keep your Cygnus from working properly. What would your reaction to that be?
From: someone
In my own experience, I get pushed by stuff that I don't want to be pushed by many times more often than I'm pushed by anything that I want to be pushed by.
You have been non-consentually pushed by a landowner, however, once. Nobody else I've run into can think of it ever happening except with the kind of security shields that have been against the TOS and effectively non-existent for longer than we've been having this debate. The kind of problem you're worried about is so much a non-issue that I honestly can't see why you're so adamant about blocking landowner push at all.

If a landowner wants to grief you, they'll unsit you, ban you, and teleport you home.
Seronis Zagato
Verified Resident
Join date: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 454
05-29-2006 18:03
From: Argent Stonecutter
If a landowner wants to grief you, they'll unsit you, ban you, and teleport you home.


Exactly! And beyond that little fact ITS THEIR LAND. They paid for it. Its THEIRS to do what they want with it and as long as some icon is available to allow a user to know what the limitations are on the land (as in my other post) there is absolutely nothing wrong with a land owner being able to override a GENERAL preference for the sake of a build.

To go a step further we should also have a means to ask llIsPUshable( key id). Check the boolean result. And if the person is not pushable eject their lame butt off the property. If you're not gonna play by my rules get off my land.
Huns Valen
Don't PM me here.
Join date: 3 May 2003
Posts: 2,749
05-29-2006 20:40
From: Argent Stonecutter
You know that's not going to happen. It's hard enough to get some people to turn of shields so they can ride aircraft, even. If there's something you can turn on that makes you completely push-proof then nobody's going to turn it on to go up an elevator... even if they think the elevator's cool.
Why do you care if someone doesn't use your elevator because they're too lazy to make themselves susceptible? Why is it your problem, at all?

From: someone
Look, what if I was proposing a solution to griefing that would keep your Cygnus from working properly. What would your reaction to that be?
Can you give me an example of a logical proposal that would make it not work right?

From: someone
You have been non-consentually pushed by a landowner, however, once. Nobody else I've run into can think of it ever happening except with the kind of security shields that have been against the TOS and effectively non-existent for longer than we've been having this debate.
Once that I'm aware of. Possibly more than that but I don't usually check to see whether the person bothering me is the land owner. And it would have been zero if I'd been given the ability to opt out.

From: someone
The kind of problem you're worried about is so much a non-issue that I honestly can't see why you're so adamant about blocking landowner push at all.
The situation of someone who is push-immune not being able to use your elevator, until they make themselves susceptible, seems like a total non-issue to me. If they want to use it they can make themselves susceptible. I really, honestly do not see what merit your argument has. It seems to be based on this unsupported conjecture that land owners are rarely abusing visitors, mixed with some kind of emotional concern about people using your elevators.

From: someone
If a landowner wants to grief you, they'll unsit you, ban you, and teleport you home.
Or push me, and this would take that away from them. I've commented separately that I support a delay behind the unsit/eject/teleport functions, which make casually flying across the grid unnecessarily hazardous.

From: Seronis Zagato
Exactly! And beyond that little fact ITS THEIR LAND. They paid for it. Its THEIRS to do what they want with it
That isn't really so. You're not allowed to do whatever you want even if it is your land that you're paying for. For example, Lee Linden pointed out that llPushObject() based security systems are not OK. It's also not okay to use pushguns even in self-defense and even on your own land.

From: someone
and as long as some icon is available to allow a user to know what the limitations are on the land (as in my other post) there is absolutely nothing wrong with a land owner being able to override a GENERAL preference for the sake of a build.
I disagree. I don't see why the fact that it's your land should enable you to push me if I don't want to be pushed.

From: someone
To go a step further we should also have a means to ask llIsPUshable( key id). Check the boolean result. And if the person is not pushable eject their lame butt off the property. If you're not gonna play by my rules get off my land.
If it puts you into conniptions that I am not available to be your personal ragdoll just because I have strayed onto your land, you are free to ban me. I would only ask that you give me a warning and some time to leave, as I am probably just passing through anyway.
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
05-30-2006 15:28
From: Huns Valen
Why do you care if someone doesn't use your elevator because they're too lazy to make themselves susceptible?
Doyou care if nobody uses your airplanes? Do you care if nobody bothers using airplanes because some new feature makes them inconvenient to use?

Also, it's not just my elevators, it's the other cool gravity effects I've run across in SL that wouldn't have been implemented because nobody would have used or even noticed them.

Do you care if nobody uses anyone's airplanes because they're too inconvenient, and the Kazenojiin lands and Abbotts and up being abandoned because nobody's interesting in making or flying aircraft any more?
From: someone
The situation of someone who is push-immune not being able to use your elevator, until they make themselves susceptible, seems like a total non-issue to me.
Let's say you had to make yourself generally push-susceptible to use an aircraft. Do you think that might make people reluctant to use an aircraft? I do.
From: someone
It seems to be based on this unsupported conjecture that land owners are rarely abusing visitors,
I don't believe I've written anything like "land owners rarely abuse visitors". The closest reading of my posts would be "if a landowner abuses visitors with push they are risking suspension, so they are more likely to abuse visitors with some other function". In practice, landowners abusing push is a non-issue, and it's unlikely to ever become an issue.
From: someone
I've commented separately that I support a delay behind the unsit/eject/teleport functions, which make casually flying across the grid unnecessarily hazardous.
First you need to get the Lindens to agree that instant-action security scripts are a problem. I'm 100% in agreement that instant-actiion security scripts should be banned, but there's too much history behind them to get that to happen all at once.

Also, once you establish that instant-action scripts aren't acceptable, then you don't have to change the behaviour of these routines... all you have to do is abuse-report them, and they'll go the way of push scripts. Which is a good thing, because changing the terms of service is really the only way to actually change the way people implement security.

If you just change the way calls work people will just come up with other tricks to block access that are equally annoying, like (for example) using the new instant-non-physical-movement trick to send a cage-rezzer after you faster than you can possibly avoid it. Trying to make griefing technically impossible (whether by random asshats or landowners with security fetishes) is a doomed arms race.
Christopher Omega
Oxymoron
Join date: 28 Mar 2003
Posts: 1,828
06-06-2006 18:20
From: Argent Stonecutter
Here's another idea, suggested in another thread... a force() event would allow you to react to a push intelligently.


That would be fun!

CODE

default {
force(key pusher, vector impulse) {
if (llVecMag(impulse) < MAX_OK_FORCE) return;
llPushObject(pusher, impulse * 1000, <0,0,0>, FALSE);
}
}


Karma BIACH! :D
==Chris
_____________________
October 3rd is the Day Against DRM (Digital Restrictions Management), learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
06-06-2006 20:46
From: Christopher Omega

Karma BIACH! :D
==Chris
You want llGetOwnerKey(pusher), I think. :)
1 2