Invisibility for freedom of movement

Happy New Year to all

It is pleasant to me that team SL gives set of various fantastic opportunities for the clients. Game rules, which this creative team establish, form virtual society SL which on the one hand mirror displays society RL, and with another represents something new.

Would like to suggest to expand opportunities for users SL. Many people search in SL for new opportunities for own privacy in VR probably because it does not suffice them in a real life. They do not want, that it someone stirred in space SL that their characters and their house were seen by someone undesirable to them.

There can be team of developers SL can give them an additional opportunity for this purpose? Why not enable option to everyone an avatar to be invisible at own choice? To make the house and the things fantom and invisible to all others with an option to choose to whom they wish to prove to be visible and to show the objects. Then the closed houses, the closed grounds, the closed sky will be not necessary. Other users but will have an opportunity freely to move on a land and in the sky without ban lines.

Freedom of movement and right to travel is too important aspect in SL, whether not so?

It is interesting to me to learn, that the team of developers SL thinks on this question.

It's an interesting problem, considering the idea that some people might not want "ghosts" around them, unseen, possibly lurking. Allowing these options on your property only might be part of the solution. It certainly bears consideration!

Moving to Feature Suggestion...

Thank you for quick answer

Certainly in the solution different variants should be considered.

Let's speak not about people in RL, but about their characters in SL. What difference for my character who surrounds it - phantoms or other avatars if I have nothing to hide from others? If the character want to be hide - chooses an option to be invisible. On a map in any case possible to leave green dot indication.

Making the avatar become invisible doesn't increase privacy, it diminishes it. Why? The exact thing you want to privatize is still being watched. Only instead of from next door and down the street, they're stanging in the room.

And you don't know.

Letting the parcel owner make the contents of a parcel (including avatars, sounds, particles, sensors, and chat) invisible to people not on the parcel's access list, but still leaving the green dots on the map, and mini-map (and maybe some kind of particle affect to show the location of the invisible avatars, but not their names) would provide the privacy you need without letting people use it to sneak up on you.

If you can - explain your point of view more in detail please.

The option to be invisible useful not only to owners of the land, but also to other residents.

Pilot: If you can make your avatar undetectable, then you can spy on people, and they don't know you're doing it. It's that simple, what's hard to understand?

I understand, why such thoughts occur in a year of the 2 agent 007

Invisibility feature it has been suggested after reading the thread "Ejecting an intruder from my land":
/327/87/156725/1.html

This is not hard to understand - if the person participating in SL game is concerned, that its character will see someone undesirable - the option to become invisible сan help such character better every possible locks and banlines.

It is necessary to find the reasonable compromise that space SL was not overload with banlines from the ground up to the sky that has already occured in very many places.

Your suggestion , Argent, to leave visible name of the character in addition to green dot indication on map can to be part of such compromise.

test

Know who the creator of dynamite is?
Alfred Nobel.
That's right, the guy who created the Nobel Peace Prize.
He didn't think that dynamite could be used to kill people.

Now think about your suggestion for a minute.

Invisible. People. On. Your. Land.

Now instead of freaking out when someone comes into your bedroom, you get to freak out all the time, not knowing for certain if anyone is there or not.

How often is dynamite used to kill people? I'm sure it's happened at least once before, but I've never heard of it. Seems like a pretty inefficient/involved/expensive/failure-prone way to kill someone.

That is interesting - now I have come to Beta Grid and have not seen there the land which has bought there, building which were on it. But the most interesting, that my interlocutor on a chat did not see mine an avatar - only tag with name

If together with all it would disappear the banlines ... may be begin from Beta Grid?

Game go on

well i have to say it again you have no damn right on land you do not own, if you got banned by hanf the residents of sl, well you would have to stand in linden parcles and the other half.

There is no minimal "right" in sl when it comes to land owned by others.

This thread has gotten so confusing I have no idea what the original poster's point was any more, but I doubt it has anything to do with high explosives.

As for dynamite... people, everyone in SL is a cartoon character! Efficiency isn't the point... just watch Looney Tunes to see the terrible carnage caused by dynamite!

It's called a bomb. They blow up buildings with people in them.

And Argent, dynamite was an analogy to the OP to help illustrate my point that you need to think about potential ways to use a feature that make it a griefing tool.

I wish to add such aspect to the suggestions under the concept of invisibility . Residents SL, especially at Land owners , already have many options for protection from undesirable to them characters. Owners wish to have clear business of more options - they in fact pay money. Therefore developers SL quite could give to owners one more additional option - opportunity to do invisible the everyone who is not pleasant and irritates to them .

It can help to understand it, that bad energy for them proceeds from optical visible objects. That is not visible does not exist. Because thoughts bad energy's created in your mind only.

P.S.
Well and "ghosts" around always is available so much how many you allow the imagination to create them in this game.

This got to be one of the most out of topics thread I have read. If some people want invisibility (which surely some are), let them to it in their own land. Add more options to land owner dialog, let them make stuffs and avatars in their land invisible (leave the minimap dots alone of course), add invisible option to avatar, then add ability for land owner to disable that function on lands they own (default On, of course)

That way people can be invisible in places owner let them do (i would love it in tringo arena, so much lag there with so many people). And no one can sneak into other's bedroom if the owner isn't already allowed them to. And the owners can be invisible to all intruder and sneaker when they do private things in their bedroom. Invisible sneaker came in, seeing nothing there, and go back out, not realizing there are people in there. All the while, of course, the room's owner can see it clearly the name and avatar of that intruder so they can ban them or just eject them.

One more, this time technical argument

Everyone invisible avatars reduces rendering time, prevent SL servers overloads and also enables to travel more quickly on the open spaces.

True. To an extent.

It does? How?

How so?

Agreed on this one................... Its more of a opposite that will occur. More grifting more more problems.

For the same reason - it is not necessary render to show yours avatars together with a landscape, for example.

What problems in SL at you can have?

I'm sorry, but your English is distorted just enough that I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

1) For the same reason (as?) - it is not necessarty to render your avatar together with a landscape, for example.

Responce: Ok, in which case, a UI option to not render YOUR avatar.

2) What problems in SL will you have.

Responce: Just as I've dicatated before: people griefing others by wandering around invisible watching what they do.

Invisible stalker.

how many ninjas are in this picture? http://www.bythebayou.com/uploaded_images/trashcan-787239.jpg

In reading this forum, I believe it appears that a number of people may have misread the intent. But the concept sounds like what could be the perfect compromise to avoid interference with the ability to travel freely throughout the grid and the desire for privacy by some land owners. To re-explain as I understand it, with a possible addition of my own:

1. Landowners would have the ability to make all content and access-allowed avatars on their own land invisible to anyone not on the parcel access list.

2. Avatars entering and leaving the parcel that are not on the access list will see an empty parcel. Perhaps they should also not be visible to the people on the access list, since in effect they do not exist.

3. Since, for all intents and purposes, the avatar is not really "there" since they cannot view anything going on within the parcel, the people on the parcel with access will not be able to see the avatars that cannot view the content.

With some refinement, I think this is a grand solution to all the arguments going on over privacy vs freedom of movement. Here are my proposed refinements:

1. While the avatars are invisible in world, they should still show on all maps. I suspect that for performance sake alone this is better, but also still gives some indication as to who is around.

2. Avatars that are invisible should not be able to be seen by the sensor event. Again, since all content is invisible to them, they are not really "there".

3. Given that these avatars are not really "there", they should be exempt from general bans and scripted actions such as llTeleportAgentHome. Specific bans may still apply, though I'm not sure there is a need. It is tantamount to a ban since the avatar can't see anything there anyway.

4. Non-access invisible avatars should be able to ride in on physical ships that may not be visible to the landowner, but if they unsit, autoreturn kicks in immediately.

Implmented correctly, spying is not an issue, since the whole idea is that you can't see what you are not allowed to see. I like this. But it must be implemented with a return of some of the losses of travel abilities that have been experienced in the name of privacy. See item 3 above. This should be a TRADE-OFF. Landowners get more privacy, in EXCHANGE for allowing uninhibited passage through their land.

My experience of dialogue in different languages shows, that when people wish to understand each other, they understand. Here, for example, Starbuckk Serapis has perfectly understood in what an essence of idea and very precisely all has formulated. Thanks.