Consider Estate owners as server admins.

Ooooh, I have this wonderful idea!

This stuff called dynamite is such a great creative tool. You could shape mountains with it! Everyone should be given cases of the stuff, it should absolutely be everyone's right to have access to it's creative capabilities.

I will use it very responsibly, and since everyone else is just as good as me, no one will get hurt. Anyway, who cares if hundreds of people get hurt or killed, it's the creative aspect that's important. It would be their fault for getting in the way.

Anyone who thinks this would be bad just has a horrible case of paranoia, and wants to hurt MY rights to be creative. Besides, I WANT IT, so that makes it totally right.

I am not being at all shortsighted, naive, and selfish with this idea, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

What do you you think of my idea, Kyrah?

I have can use as much dynamite as i want in a virtual environment, especially if it's in a place i own.

I don' think i am being that short sighted, it's a toolset i have been thinking about since the days of the first private island.

The potential for abuse is still extremely limited, since it is detained in the boundaries of a private sim, which you have to abid to the rules anyway in order to visit it.





One way to satisfy everybody that i see is some sort of agreement function, like

llRequestGlobalPermissions(key id, string message).
llGetGlobalPermission(key id) (return TRUE/FALSE)

coupled to two events:

on_sim_entrance(num detected)

on_sim_exit(num detected)

So gaming related sims could explain why they need it for, if you accept, you give all the perms that we so wildly discussed before for the duration of your trip in the sim to all the estate owned scripts, if you refuse, well you give nothing, but the script can eventually boot you out, or flag you as spectator, or something else like this.

Sound good?

If you're using virtual dynamite on your land, who's going to step into the blast?



No one.

I'd want those specific permissions I'm handing over to be listed. A dialogue box asking to "grant unspecified permission to do anything/everything to your avatar. accept or leave?" Will get 99% of people clicking on leave.

and hand out a note card so the sim owner can explan why they want these powers

OT: dynamite is a bad example cause nitroglycerin is really easy to make

Nope. Because you as a sim or land owner ALREADY have the right to restrict access to groups or individuals; evict and or ban; freeze... You want to make as DEFAULT a Grid in which Sim owners get Godlike "GlobalPermissions" over all aspects of avatars visiting their lands, citing as justification the scenario of a compartmentalized game within SL; how many of these are there? It's NOT what most people build. But by your proposal ALL Sim owners would get the controls, including (to mention only a few from your long list)

"]...-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 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 force mouselook/any other camera settings..."

Such default controls for Sim owners utterly negate the core of Community Standards http://secondlife.com/corporate/cs.php , which are based on freedom and mutual respect, not domination and contempt. I suggest you reread them, and ask yourself what world THAT suggests and then what world your patchwork of God-like dictatorships would be like.

"The goals of the Community Standards are simple: treat each other with respect and without harassment, adhere to local standards as indicated by simulator ratings, and refrain from any hate activity which slurs a real-world individual or real-world community. "

The Grid's fundamental basis is free exchange of ideas, personal control and responsibility, respect. That's what makes creativity possible, what makes this not a game but a world.

My agreement to enter SL is with LL, NOT with every person renting a Sim or land from them. I find it laughable you imagine there would not be abuse; are you aware of how much newbie and sexual harrassment there is?? And you imagine this wouldn't be abused... Your proposal seeks unreasonable and contemptuous controls over any avatar. You want a license and specific tools for harrassment, at a sim owner's whim. No, thanks for asking. If you choose to found Kyrah Labs to make your world, be sure to let us know.

I still think it' would be a positive addition to the scripting toolset and itsnot giving me any rights i haven't already by being able to eject who i want at will.

No it's not. By ejecting someone and saying "you didn't attach this" they shrug say "F you" and never come back.

By ATTACHING IT FOR THEM they go "WTF?" and essentially get mentally abused by the sim owner (even if it's not adulty) and end up in a tramatic emotional situation.

above points are valid. but look at it this way. making a game in secondlife takes alot of talent and skill. and even with all the right tools for the trade it still takes practice.

i think kyrah's application could be used in ideas like... first person action adventure games. where going third person. could ruin the magic of the idea.

just my opinion.

the problem is that i could see this used for better reasons too. like freezing avatars until they agree with the sim's personal TOS. afterall. these people are paying for the private sims your favorite nightclub or shopping mall are on. they pay for it with their own money so they should have the right to restrict access unless you agree to abide by their rules in their home.

just because a sim is mature doesnt mean someone can run around with their xcite parts hanging out. or something of the sort. that kind of application i could actually see alot of people putting their support behind

Yes, it's interesting to see everyone so focused on the slim but possible negative usage, while ignoring all the positive aspects. It's like saying we shouldn't have electricity because someone could be electrocuted.

Actually, its got, to me, very little to do with the ability to abuse the issue - as I said earlier, I wouldn't agree even if I knew for a fact nobody would ever abuse it.

It's an issue of property rights, nothing more. My avatar, my property. Your sim, your property. If I don't like your sim, I leave. If you don't like my avatar, you can kick me out. I can't remove things from your sim I don't like, you can't remove things from my avatar you don't like.

That's fine, only, who said you get to decide that's how it's supposed to be?

I have as much right to decide that as anyone else here.

Plus, LL has essentially billed your avatar as "yours" for the entire history of SL, almost everyone operates on the assumption that that is the case, and I know a heck of a lot of people would be backing out if they thought it wasn't.

Well, thanks for finally realizing the point. This is a forum for suggestions, and Kyrah offered one, The proper thing to have done is discuss it rationally, instead people chose to verbally lambast her, and thats really the only reason I finally decided to post. I'm not targeting you specifically, however it seems you're the only one willing to reply at this time. I just don't think it's fair to shoot down an idea just because you don't like the person who thought of it, and for many in this thread, thats exactly what they were doing.



It isn't unheard of for LL to change their stance on matters. But you are right, the residents should decide. Thats what the JIRA thingy is for. Lets put this in there and let people vote.

Sometimes lambasting and shooting down an idea is the only discussion possible. I can only "discuss" an idea when there is something to discuss... I (and apparently most other people who have responded) don't feel there is any room for discussion on this issue, that it is unacceptable.



It's rare, though, and the last time it happened (the community standards/ageplay thing), it was brought on by threat of legal action... and it STILL generated so much backlash that LL is probably going to be really hesitant to make any major policy changes like that.

Well Reisuki i opened this thread to discuss the benefits of such function, not for you to rant.

I am discussing your suggestion. The fact that my discussion is not "Yay! This is a perfect feature, I'm 100% for it!" does not negate the validity of my discussion.