Consider Estate owners as server admins.

Its a suggestion i already made before and i am re doing it again.

My main gripe currently of being estate owner is that beyond some sort of extended land owner capabilities, the visitors have basically the same rights as the estate owner.

So, i would like that the estate owner get the following capabilities, to be used by hand AND by estate scripts:

-every permissions, excepted PERMISSION_DEBIT are automatically granted
-modified sensor that detect all the avatars no matter where they are in the sim
-ability to detach attachments from the avatars on a case per case basis.
-ability to apply "external" clothes and attachments to an avatar (the object is equipped without being owned by the player and will disappear when the avatar exit the sim.
-ability to block detaching/attaching attachments/clothes on a case per case basis.
-ability to block scripts on a case per case basis
-ability to block object rezzing on a case per case basis
-ability to block pushes on a case per case basis
-ability to block flight on a case per case basis
-ability to move an avatar anywhere in the sim without any limit of distance
-ability to prevent an avatar to move from a specific position
-ability to return an object by script
-ability to set options/sell/reclaim parcels by script
-ability to force mouselook/any other camera settings

various script events for everything that happen in the sim
avatar connection/deconnection, object rezzing, script start, object attached, ...

the failsafe to prevent abuses exist already, just teleport out (or log out if tp fucked up).

THIS would make SL really great to engineer specific applications like games, but not just games. In short, every sort of programs that cannot work if the user is able to tamper with core elements or if the server application isn't in total control of all the server side elements.

Hi Kyrah

I agree, the difference between what an EO can do and what a visitor to the sim can do is very small, when compared to the difference between, say, a forum owner and forum visitor, or an IRC server owner and a IRC user.

To address some of your particular suggestions :




Could you give some examples of how this would be really helpful?



This sounds very like https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-58
I agree with this suggestion. It would reduce load created by sensors, as well as making security scripts more effective.



Again, any examples of how this is useful?
Also, unless you also get the power to stop them attaching anything new... then can't they just re-attach whatever you detach?



Interesting idea.
Say, combat meters for RP sims?

The problem with this idea is that it might require substantial coding work.
Can you justify why this should have priority over other requests, especially given that you can script something so that unless someone is wearing your attachments, they can't do certain things (like pass through doors!) in your sim?



More detail needed, about :
* how this would work
* why this is a feature we really need



Can you give examples of times when you'd want to do this, without banning the person from the region?



Can you give examples of times when you'd want to do this, without banning the person from the region?



Can you give examples of times when you'd want to do this, without banning the person from the region?



I think this is fairly pointless, as anyone can bypass no-fly restrictions within 3 seconds using keyboard shortcuts.



llTeleportAgent?
https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-212



Do you mean extending the time that 'freeze' works for? Perhaps giving EOs/EMs the ability to freeze someone for up to 60 seconds per application?

Or do you mean just limiting movement?



llReturnObject
https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-705



Ah, the good old "scriptable parcel settings".
This has been proposed a lot. I can't remember the FVT/JIRA link for it though.
The main objection to it is : "how much would people actually USE this?"



I can see the application of this, e.g. for combat sims.



This is probably the single most powerful feature request you have in this set.
Were there an event for avatars entering the sim, for example, you wouldn't need sim-wide scanning, because instead of scanning the whole sim every 15s, you could just get notified when anyone new joins.

There are a few other things I'd suggest sim owners have the power to do.

Security issues :
* Ability to set bans by IP address / hardware hash. In the days of endless alts, banning simply by account name is insufficient. We need the ability to ban by group membership for the same reason.
* Ability to set a sim-wide "disable build for 'all residents'" which would be an override for parcel settings, similar to 'disable push'. It wouldn't stop group members building, but it would stop the general public.
* Ability to set a flag that disables the use of particles in the region, or better yet, particles emitted by the avatars/objects of no-pay-info-on-file people. The particles would still render for that person, but nobody else would see them. Good to stop spamming attacks.
* Estate owners/managers should be immune to teleport home on their own estates, so that they have the power to address annoying resident security orbs without getting whacked.

Other issues :
* Estate owners should be able to access a graph of their sim's time dilation over the last 24h/7d/30d, and also a log in text format of the most recent restarts/crashes of the sim.
* Estate owners should be able to configure sims remotely, without having to physically go there to access their control panel.
* The "estate manager" designation should be completely removed, and replaced with a system of 'flags' so that you can give people the right amount of access to take care of issues, without handing over the keys to the castle.
* Estate owners should be able to set a flag on their region/estate, which disallows use of 'access lines' on that region/estate. This would be a GREAT, low hassle way of enforcing the 'no annoying access lines' rule on private estates.

There are probably more things EOs should be able to do, but those are some of the ones that come to mind now. I admit they have a security/management bias!
Please comment

This would allow too much abuse. Scratch the remove/attach others clothes and attachments and I might agree with it, as well as removing the blocking of attaching and detaching.

Example: Person B walks in to sim they've frequented for months.

Sim owner on power trip..or who just thinks person B's cute, removes all of person B's clothing and clothing like attachments.

Person B: WTF?

Sim owner takes away their ability to detach/reattach, and forces them to mouselook only, then puts collar on them, forcing permissions.

Unless Person B teleports.. they can't even abuse report this behavoir because abuse reports made on the sim go to..gasp.. the Estate manager, and gasp.. mouselook only

Maybe its just one case.. but the RP sims I visit have few issues, these additions aren't needed.

basically , all these functions consider that by his presence , the avatar gave his approval, after all , if he wasn't okay he wouldn't be there.

for this permission thing is that basically if any objects owned by the estate owner ask for a permission, it is granted automatically without any user input.

As for the "external" objects and clothes. The way it work currently is that you have to give them the object, by giving it to them you also give them the right to pull it apart and modify it (yes even nomod items someone can delete a script, or pull it out of the object)

it would also be much simpler for the user, enter the sim, you automatically the hud you will need slapped on your screen aswell as the proper team clothes. Get out of the sim, the temporary items are removed.

for the move/move lock its the scripted ability to just move an avatar or prevent him to move. there is many applications for this, like for games respawning , death penality, or when you need to teleport easily someone without requiring a specific input.

the script/rez/push block idea is that you can then selectively allow objects to run or you can make scripts to police a sandbox, like that will shut down push or script capability to a specific person if too many abuses are recorded.

for blocking the attach/detach function it is again usefull in games or in some community settings so for example you can label guests during their trip in the sim, enforce the colors of a team, etc... it goes in pair with the external objects.


Hell if the estate owner is like a sim admin the least he can have is a say in everything that happen on the piece of software he is paying for , isn't it?

Well you always have the option to go out right? So nobody is forcing you to do anything.

I give you another example, if i go play half life 2 and the admin of the server is on a power trip and is just making me angry, i just go on another server, the problem is easy to solve.

I believe that, (excepted on questions of legality) the person that is paying the bill is the one that define the rules. What this suggestion offer is merely to offer the possibility to fully automate it rather than needing an admin presence 24/7.

I'd personally leave the sim, vocally, if even one incident happened to anyone, myself or not. I would use every channel from group chat to get the behavoir out.. eventually a sim owner would be alone - I don't let go.

Isn't that what we usually do when an estate manager is a jerk anyway?

so let me get this strait, you want to know when someone enters your sim, be able to move them to your bedroom, freeze them, take off their clothes, and force them to attach an object that contains a script you control and some broadly offensive animations. ok, i can agree to that, if we get a new category of abuse available in the AR panel, sexual harassment/rape, these reports will always go to LL, and when they get to many [valid] reports on someone all of their accounts will be banned and their sims will be auctioned off.

"Paying the bills" is a blurry concept on SL. You can sell and rent out your sim, and while technically you're paying the bills, you're using other people's money to fund it.

If someone bought private estate land, "just tp out" isn't a real option when the estate owner starts griefing them since they'd have to give up their land and accept the loss.

These all sound pretty good. I'd like to add the ability to toggle landowner's ability to turn on/off some options on parcels in the estate. For Example, In my covenant I state that object entry must be left on. Well invariably, new tenants always turn everything off. If I could set it so this option was greyed out to them, it would save me a lot of headache.

SO all you see in these suggestions is sex related things?
What i would like is to promote the possibility of using full sim units as totally different universes, lets take a simple game of red vs blue, the ability to enforce clothes/attachments become pretty obvious, and its also more secure.
(code wise you can just make, it so only scripts owned by the estate owner can interact with the game mechanic, which will work because at no moment the game hud, and other elements will change ownership due to the external objects)
Because the player isn't having actual access to the game logic elements, its like going to a paintball field and renting the gears, once you get out of the field you have to give back the equipment. The possibilities of these features would really make SL more interesting.
Right now some entertainment concepts aren't even possible because even on a private sim the avatar can bypass any "rules".
Nobody ever wanted to recreate team fortress,planetside or any other famous online games in second life? Giving more powers to estate owners will allow them to create more complex game rules and have them actually enforced properly.

I have a couple of issues with the latter ones but number one on the list is awful. It would essentially give the estate owner full perms on any object in the sim as you laid it out including edit, delete (which was taken out of estate controls in favor of return only I believe) not to mention the ability to steal anyone's stuff they want.

I can't speak for leliel, but it's fairly obvious that some/most of the things you're suggesting have rather far-stretching griefing applications. What she (he? not sure from the name ) suggested is one form of it, and it's guaranteed to be someone's sad kick if LL would just blindly implement this.

The ability to attach arbitrary attachments can be used to automatically attach a combat meter, but it can also be used to silently attach a spy script, or an attachment designed to trick someone into giving it debit permissions.

LL consciously made the decision that the actual avater user is in control over the avatar, and not another user and that shouldn't just be dismissed lightly. So far your response has been to simply ignore any negative side-effect (again, tp'ing away isn't an option for people who paid for the estate land) instead of trying to refine your suggestions to find the right balance.

nope cause debit permission can only be requested to the owner of the object.

As for a post a bit higher in the list i explained myself badly, i mean the SCRIPTED PERMISSIONS, not the permissions related to the objects/assets themselve. Tis just plain silly that a server admin has to ask for permission to play an animation on an avatar in his sim.

As for griefing, how many peoples would really risk losing an investment as big as a sim for a silly joke?

As for the spy, its already possible to put a nest of scripts in the sim to do the very same thing. And on exit of the sim the external objects are removed anyway.

Yes, but that kind of spying only works when the person is in the sim. If you silently attach a spy script to a person when they TP in, they'll still have it when they TP out.



No it isn't. The EO being asked for animations he owns to be played on him? Yes.
Just because the EO owns the sim DOES NOT give them permission to play animations on anyone IN the sim.

If you look at the options under god mode in the debug client and server menu items you'll see that most options target prims in various ways. Av's can be banned and ejected and these are the only sort of powers that EO's should have wrt agents.

I think EO's should have similar powers to Lindens but on their own sims only. I don't think Lindens have power to make agents wear attachments.

IMHO, the biggest obstacles to this proposal are :

1) Lindens wanting to keep information such as IP addresses away from us users. They cite privacy grounds for this, IIRC.

2) Lindens wanting people to remain "in control of their resident experience". This doesn't just mean "stop other people forcing them to do stuff by default". It also means (from my experience with FVT prop 1228/1229, back when I was a newbie) that LL is against allowing people to give others more control of their avatar. They were against allowing people to lock attachments on them (even if the attachments could later be removed). I think they'd be similarly against giving sim owners the ability to clothe or strip people on their sims. Even if they agreed to this by joining the sim.

3) Frankly, there are a lot more important things to be worrying about. There are many features that SL lacks, such as direct debits between avatars (which would open the way to all kinds of subscription-based services in SL) which are more important than this. They're more important because, unlike the attachment/etc proposal, they have no workaround. IP bans on a sim-level, for example, simply cannot be done right now without a VERY elaborate scripted system to do it.

I can see the point of this proposal. I can even see some cases (e.g. red/blue team play games) where it'd be very useful if we had these features. OTOH, I think more needs to be done to justify them enough that they'll get substantial resident attention, let alone Linden attention. Perhaps thinning them down to the most important / easy to code ones would be a start.

The externals would not persist on exiting the sim.



Last time i checked, on all the other hosting applications I ever used, being game servers, web servers or anything allowing clients to connect, the person that administrate the server DO has full power and scripting ability on all the data hosted/served by the server, what i am suggesting isn't even full control, but MORE controls because we are in a server bound environment that belong to the same person from border to border and because of this it just can't be griefing, you can't be griefed by an estate owner as it is their world and their rules (on the limits of the TOS).

Angel Fluffy ---> Lindens wanting people to remain "in control of their resident experience".

This was true as long as the private servers entered the mix, in a public space you can be potentially griefed by any script, which is why LL implemented some kind of limits. But these shouldn't apply (mostly) in a private environment.


Yes there are ways to bypass these problems, however , they are cumbersome, they cost a lot of resources just to be secure and/or hack proof ,they are not flexible and concern only scripted prim items.

You shouldn't have to give any pieces of the server side code to any player to allow him to play
The player shouldn't have the option to just send you "fuck off" in your own server. And that means whenever there is an admin online or not.

I am tired that with the massive bill estate owners pay they can't do squat more with their server than any land owner

Yes, I agree this is annoying.
We need to figure out some way of persuading LL to open-source the server software.

Once they do that, we can take the code, run it on our own servers, and modify it to have the features we want. This will reduce our costs (no reason to pay LL many times the market rate for hosting), give us the features we want, and at the same time improve code quality.

I doubt they'd agree to this though, because :
* It might hurt their bottom lines (unless they charged a substantial fee to let a sim connect to the main grid)
* It would cause a crash in terms of land prices, which would be good for the consumer but bad for a lot of vested interests.
* It would be a HUGE change that would have much of SL up in arms.

Personally, I'm tired of asking LL for various features. They aren't putting them in, and I don't blame LL for this either. They have only so much dev time, everyone asks them for different things, and they really need to be fixing various bugs and concurrency issues anyway.

I'm starting to think that the only way for us to get the features we really want is to push LL to open source BOTH the client and sim code.

hell yes, why dont they do this



thats why

Just because the EO owns the sim, they don't own the server itself, nor do they move up to God Mode (i.e. Linden level of power). They control the LAND, the CONTENT, and ACCESS.

They DO NOT have the right to make my avatar do things. If I walk onto your land iRL do you have the right to make me bend over and grab my feet? No. I have control over my own body and that right extends into the digital realm with respect to my avatar. There's a REASON the permissions exist. Your objects don't need to ask because generally you know what it does, but it's kind when they ask. Sitting on an object has permission because you chose to sit there and it can animate you how it wants for the sit-pose/animation.

Walking into a sim does not confer these kinds of permissions.

well actually it does confer them to me but in a manual sense as if you do'nt do what the EO say he can boot you out.

What i suggest is that the EO get more right and if you don't like it , you boot yourself out.

How different is it?

He asks.

I either do it, or leave.

If I am never asked it is forced upon me without my consent and without any warning.

Well maybe we could have a laarge warning that you enter a private sim that use extended rights blablabla if you don't want to continue click no.

Unconditional "No f-ing way" to any permission to modify, animate, or move an avatar in any way, shape, or form.

As you say, it's a question of who pays the bills.

You control your sim. You pay the bills on it.

I control my avatar. I pay the bills on it. You have no right whatsoever to control, edit, or move my avatar short of eject/banning me.

I wouldn't agree to those permissions even if I knew that every single person with estate powers was 100% responsible, honest, and decent - and you know for a *fact* that that isn't even in the remotest vicinity of true.

IP bans brought up by someone else - only if its blind. It's already too easy to get a persons IP from the game, lets not make it more so.