Invisibility for freedom of movement

All of this is under "parcel invisibility" and the Linden responce I know of for why it is not feasible is agent Foo and agent Bar who are friends. Agent Foo has access, agent Bar does not. Agent Foo stands on the land, agent Bar is either off or on, doesn't matter. Bar can not see what Foo does, nor can Bar SEE Foo, yet Bar knows Foo is there.



Not enough in my opinion. All I know is someone is there, if they are stalking me, I want to know WHO THEY ARE so I can report them.



This is even worse. Now I can't use scripts to see them and report. Unless you're proposing this along with the invisible parcel option. Still, I don't like



1. Can't even call llTeleportHome if the agent is undetectible by Sensor.
2. I think you mean to have this with the invisible parcel. This kind of invisibility should not be at the option of the user, but of the land owner who bans the avatar--the avatar should not be rendered by anyone standing inside an invisible parcel. This is old and has been discussed with the invisible parcel ideas.

And Foo knows Bar is there. Why is this any more a problem than if there's a prim between them?

This shouldn't even be called "invisibility", it's a phantom zone, a virtual parallel universe. The only reasonable implementation I can come up with is: everything in the parcel is phantom as well as invisible to the banned avatar, except for agent tags and ground/water textures. Maybe some kind of particle system to indicate the phantom avatars. Nobody is "invisible".

This is almost entirely handled by limiting what's sent to the client. The only change to the sim would be the "phantom" effect... sensors and all other calls would still work normally.

Under this proposal, they cannot see you if parcel invisiblity is turned on. So why do you care? How can someone stalk a person they cannot see???



Yes this is only if you use the invisibility option being proposed. This is intended to be a win-win. You get your privacy, while we retain the ability to travel through the mainland without being fettered by attack scripts like llTeleportHome. If you don't care for it, just don't use the feature.



If thats too much for you to accept, just don't use the invisiblity feature. But the purpose of this is to eliminate the need for it. Too many times, these added "privacy featuers" have come along for the purported purpose of "reducing the need for security orbs". But nobody gets rid of their orbs. I'm calling for you to have to give something in return for this one, so EVERYONE'S needs are addressed.

[QUOTE[
2. I think you mean to have this with the invisible parcel. This kind of invisibility should not be at the option of the user, but of the land owner who bans the avatar--the avatar should not be rendered by anyone standing inside an invisible parcel. This is old and has been discussed with the invisible parcel ideas.
[/QUOTE]

Yes this is the idea. It is intended as a landowner tool.

SL game rules are created during game.

The winner in this game in RL is known and it is business Linden Lab. But travellers, even if they pay nothing in L$ participate in business. Not only land owners , but also, all travellers give to this game the energy.

The question in that, how much friendly atmosphere is created in this game. During acquaintance with SL, the beginner constantly encounters fences of electronic obstacles and it looks not attractively.

Invisibility feature instead of ban lines can give to this game greater appeal without infringement of the rights of land owners.

I like Starbuck's summary, and I agree with Argent except perhaps about sensor -- this is an alternate reality.

I don't understand why Draco would worry about a person who he cannot see or interact with, and cannot see him or interact with him. The only harm this person can possibly do is use server time. However, for that purpose, it should be possible FOR THE OWNER to turn on NAMES for the invisible people who happen to be on their property. That way, they can eject folks who sit there with lots of prims and scripts.

People and things outside the "invisible" property should not be invisible, IMHO -- so you can have a view if you're lucky. If you don't want to see out, put up a wall for heaven's sake! The land in the invisible property should be visible. This essentially creates more SL greenspace. It would also be nice to create a 'visible' landscape -- perhaps limited to trees and plants -- for this purpose.

I don't understand the LL objection -- in this case, you get what you want.

If the objection is complexity, well, I would understand that!

Your post that I was quoting was worded in such a way as to imply those things as a non-landowner parcel invisibility setting (as it was mentioned down around point 5).

If all of that occurs from setting a parcel phantom/invisible, fine.

Argent: the issue comes up with Foo not knowing Bar is banned and confused why Bar can't see the objects/avatars on the land.
Foo: "This is a great club, come, sit on this transporter"
Bar: "What transporter?"

And I think another of the Linden "we're not sure what to do" things was chat. If chat in a phantom parcel isn't passed to banned agents, then that conversation would go:


Foo: "This is a great club, come, sit on this transporter"
Foo: "Bar? Are you there?"
Foo: "Bar? Hello?"
Foo to Bar in IM: "You there?"
Bar to Foo in IM: "Yes"
Foo to Bar in IM: "Can you hear anything I'm typing in general chat?"
Bar to Foo in IM: "No."

Bar wouldn't see Foo either, which would be a dead giveaway. Bar would see Foo's label and some kind of indication (eg, a particle system) that Foo was hidden from Bar. The same factor would apply to chat.

I think this is more a matter of "we haven't thought about this" rather than "we can't figure out how to deal with this". It's not difficult to come up with a good workaround.

True. I'm just forwarding LL comments that I've seen to get people to think about what to do in such a case as LL came up with a sticking point scenario.



I did say, "we're not sure what to do" meaning "we've thought about it but can't figure out a solution."

Let's return to a theme and we shall talk about obvious situations when invisibility can be necessary for your characters.

Here a little bit often repeating situations when it is absolutely quite good to make the avatar invisible to others:

1. Edit appearance.
2. An intimate scene (in this case it is naturally desirable for two characters to see each other).
3. The avatar works and before the finish of the work does not wish to show to anybody the creations and itself.

Sometimes there are also situations when you do not wish to see other avatar. For example, when in Welcome Area or other public place appears the next joker with any object attached to them (from small up to huge the sizes), it would be quite good to make its invisible together with its object. Certainly you do its invisible only for yourselves similarly to "Mute" option.

I honestly think they've never really thought about a solution to that problem. Because it's not a very hard problem.

Not just your characters. Your characters and anything else on your property. That's where your case (3) is a big deal, and concentrating on avatars misses most of the situations wherethat's important.

Maybe they have, maybe they haven't. They voiced the problem I stated, you've posted solutions and while I can say, "ok, it sounds like it'd work" I don't know what they think.

Might I give a countersuggestion to parcel/building privacy? No matter how many barriers one puts up to stop an avatar from entering the land, one can be seen using camera controls. As there is a phantom option in building, can there not be in "impenetrable" option which will in effect stop a camera from entering through the walls to view what is happening behind them? I have no clue if that's achievable but it will solve the privacy issue and allow everyone to move about freely in SL without getting blocked-in sometimes by those obnoxious forcefields, and it does not provide grievers with yet another tool.

I agree with Seek that this suggestion of invisibility (something already possible by wearing invisiprims) is mostly useful as a griefing tool. I've seen griefers using invisiprims (spottable by using CTRL ALT T to view transparent objects). "Freedom of Movement" is freedom to grief.

I also want to see camming made more difficult by having an 'impenetrable' setting on prim edit dialog, or merely to use a preexisting feature, the material type setting (i.e. glass, wood, stone, etc) which would, for instance, make stone impenetrable by camming. There is a limit to this though, just as one can tp into a closed structure by sitting on something inside it, this impenetrable setting also has a weakness: most structures are nowhere near perfectly sealed, particularly around doors, but also between most prims in the more noobish buildings. The path cut function cuts boxes at an angle at the corner, so in many applications, path cut prims only touch bare edges, not whole facets.

The other issue I think is that the camera is controlled client side.
For real privacy we need the prims/avatars inside a "banned" parcel to not be transmitted to the client.

The whole point to the "phantom zone" and "parcel basement" proposals that Haravik and I were talking about is to defeat this.

Your idea sounds good, but since camera controls are implemented in the client there is no point... a modified client would still be able to see the,. The proposals we were discussing don't download any objects from a parcel you don't have access to, so the client has no way of overriding them.

You can't see invisiprims with control-alt-t.

Hello, Blue Linden and Linden Lab, it would be desirable to know opinion LL after discussion in this thread.

May be users would agree to be invisible to other users when this choice necessary for them.

Such addition to the program can lower loading on your servers and World SL would start to work more stably.

Lower server load? How?

The server would be able to ignore all physical interactions between objects in different "phantom zone states" even if they were in the same parcel, reducing the amount of collision checking they have to perform.

Point.
But I think Pilot's version of "invisibility" is still the vastly wrong one--and one that doesn't make phantom people, just invisible ones.

Yes, it's a pity this thread has hijacked the discussion.

Can you explain what difference "phantom" or "invisible" in your words here? And what wrong? May be you don't want understand my English or I do not understand you ...

"Invisible" - can not be seen. In these forums, "invisible" carries a connotation of "stalking"... that there's no indication an invisible observer is even there.

"Phantom" - can not be touched, in this context it also implies a "phantom zone" effect where people allowed in the parcel can interact (see, touch, sit on, etcetera) objects in the parcel, but other people can't... and vice versa. But they shouldn't be *completely* invisible... some kind of marker would let you know where the "phantom zoned" person was.

Or we could go with the generally accepted definitions of both words:
in·vis·i·ble (ĭn-vĭz'ə-bəl) pronunciation
adj.
Impossible to see; not visible: Air is invisible.

phan·tom also fan·tom (făn'təm) pronunciation
n.
1.
a. Something apparently seen, heard, or sensed, but having no physical reality; a ghost or an apparition.
b. Something elusive or delusive.
2. An image that appears only in the mind; an illusion.