Warning before being teleported.

Could we have a dialog box appear asking our permission to be teleported if a script tries to do so?

RE: this thread

then I'll post the same reply here

If you give me an alternative? Because you're asking to make the whole function pointless if you ASK them if they want to be tp'd.

Personally, I'm actually not interested in tp'ing people home. It's just the most convenient method of dispatching them. If I could put a 'bubble' around my lab that stops them dead, unable to get any closer, that would be fine, too.

And any warning I give negates the purpose of the script, cuz they can sure as hell fly to the center of the scanner and see what you were trying to keep them away from in 10 seconds or whatever.

/me agree with kris

No, asking permission is a bad idea.

Giving them a warning like "In 15 seconds you will be teleported if you're still over this land" is a good idea.

I disagree for the reasons I already stated above. You can do this now by scripting it. But it shouldnt be mandatory (you can make it mandatory on the mainland if you like! )

Well, yeah, I am asking to make the whole function pointless, and this is why:
Extrapolating from the way LL has made things work to date, an avatar gets the right-of-way through any sim. Even if the built-in land security tools (yes, I know these are inadequate for your needs) are activated, you can still fly over. If the land is a "no-fly" zone, you keep flying unless you land. Therefore it can be assumed that free travel is high on the LL avatar rights priority list. The "WTF why am I suddenly home?" security method, while undoubtedly effective, has the unfortunate side effect of greatly inconveniencing the innocent who have no reason to suspect they're suddenly gonna sent 1,500 miles out of their way for no good reason. Freedom of movement, in theory, ranks higher than the right of someone to unwillingly teleport someone else. (And under any other circumstances, teleporting someone unwillingly would certainly be abuse.)


Yes, you're right. There is a big dead spot in SL where there should be a clear-cut personal privacy policy and the tools to enforce it. Let's face it, as much as I like SL to be as open as possible (and I will do anything I can to keep it a culture of exploration and sharing), there is a legitimate need for security that works, both to protect trade secrets and to shield us all from the latest eye-scarring adult animations. From what I understand, the tools that have been supplied to us by LL just aren't up to snuff, right?

right. and again you're not considering people who use this legitimately to protect areas they otherwise cant on their own sims where there is no 'fly thru' or right of way. Which is why I keep pushing back! Problem with most of these suggestions is people just see black and white based on their own situations.



I agree. Totally.



Right. So don't take away my only option without giving me an alternative.

I agree with the warning, it should be required for a security script that bounces or teleports you.
So many people have scripts like this on their land now; they ruin a lot of the fun of exploring SL. Bad enough we had the red bar lines but at least you didn't get sent somewhere far off your flying path.

I understand and sympathize, honest I do. It's just that I perceive a fundamental unfairness in the ability to teleport someone against their will, an unfairness that is counter to the way that SL has worked until now. I am not against security systems. I am against the method.

Hopefully the powers-that-be are reading this debate, considering both sides, and can suggest a solution to satisfy both of our (legitimate, I think) concerns.

Teleporting should have the same courtesy period as banning someone from your land (i.e. "you are no longer allowed here and have 15 seconds to leave." If you own a private sim, you can make a suggestion to LL to have stronger controls, but this business of getting teleported home for no fucking reason just 'cause I went within 96 meters of someone's sex room flying by has got to stop.

I also think there should be a 24 hour sliding window on it. You get the warning once, and if you are a jackass and come back right away, you don't get the warning.

No.

But a 15 second delay after any TP for any one avatar would be kewl. (This would keep the crappy coded security scripts from crashing clients.) (Oh, and I'd rather it not be a script pause, but just have the system ignore further TP commands for that av for 15 seconds... assuming that's possible.)

Oh, and it would be great if that message that pops up "object 'soandso' on parcel 'whatandwhere' has teleported you home" in the lower right of the window was repeated in the chat history, so those crappy scripts on the mainland that instantly TP Joe Passerby home can be more easily identified.

llTeleportAgentHome() is too useful to hobble.

You can just as easily teleport someone against their will by banning them from your land while they're on it. They just get a bit of a warning that way.

There is no "right to privacy" in SL except insofar as people imagine there is. If you want privacy, unplug your computer. If you think the players of SL should not be party to your mad s3xx0rz or whatever, don't do 'em in SL.

The auto-crash teleport "defense systems" is like setting mine fields around your RL home. Yes, it is your property, but that doesn't give you authority to kill inadvertent trespassers. Indeed, at least since the classic "spring-gun trap" case in 1971 it has been broadly held that automated devices to harm trespassers, innocent or not, is a Bad Thing.

The Lindens have already declared overzealous (i.e. client crashing) teleport scripts to be 'gainst the rules but I suspect that it will be a while before these leave SL. If it hasn't already been suggested, how about a modal dialog - which stops all client action - saying something like "spring-trap script blah has offered you a free teleport home. OK". This could be a quick fix to the multiple-teleport-crash problem, would slow people from sniping at the ban distance, and give the innocent trespasser the ability to record a location to be reported or avoided.

Once again, this isn't real life.

In real life, I can lock my doors. That will keep most people out. If you come in any way, you have broken laws and will be arrested.

I can't do these things in Second Life, or rather, I can lock my doors, but when is the last time you saw that work?

It's a good point...don't do or say anything in SL you wouldn't want someone at LL to read or see.

However, like it or not, there are legitimate reasons for privacy in SL, such as the protection of trade secrets.

I don't care what information may be logged by linden labs... Thats not the issue. Just because I accept that linden labs has the ability to pull up logs doesn't mean I give you permission to do the same.

No this is not real life. That doesn't negate that people think automatic spring-trap assaults upon innocent trespassers is Bad.

In real life, sticking a lance of plywood through someone's torso is against the law and is impolite besides. In the game known as Second Life, I can stick a lance of plywood through your torso - I may do so accidentally. Is it against the ToS? I don't think so. Would doing it intentionaly be impolite? Yep.

It took us millenia to invent ways to more-or-less peacefully co-exist with each other. Just because Second Life is a game doesn't mean that rules of polite society ought be discarded wholesale. Just because I can do something in SL, doesn't mean I should; this is a very common confusion.

Ironicly, this is exactly the line of logic that makes security scripts so desireable.

I'm not sure I follow... If you are saying that the ability to clandestinely eavesdrop or assault an avatar from outside a ban-line is a bad thing, then we are in wild agreement.

If you are saying that my innocent fly-by past your scanner ought to be responded to by crashing my client even if there is no one there to "protect", then I think we'll just disagree.

It is part of the issue, because we as players have to enter into the world of SL with our eyes open. I think the point Malachi was making that there are degrees of privacy. SL is not private in the strictest sense of the word, and will probably never be. Not that I'm accusing LL of spying, but I for one have no idea what LL does with the game logs, and I act accordingly.

To return to my second comment in the post you quoted, there is an "economy" based on manufacture in SL. And as with any capitalistic-ish economy, there is competition based on features, innovation, and price. I would submit that for the economy to thrive, it is essential for innovators to be able to keep their secrets secret. Else those who compete on price alone will steal the ideas and sell them cheaply, depriving the innovators of a reward that keeps them innovating.

That's one reason SL needs privacy, even if it is a limited, in-game version of privacy.

A few of the folks in this thread are completely misunderstanding the nature of the "bug" with llTeleportAgentHome(). There's also some generalizing how this function is being used, and using that as an argument for the sunsetting of this function call.


First of all - contrary to rumour, simply using llTeleportAgentHome() by itself does not cause an agent to crash. It is the repeated and rapid firing of this call that causes this behavior. If a script is intentionally behaving in this way, then yes, that is against the CS. It is also against the CS if you TP agents home that are not over your own land.


However, using llTeleportAgentHome() with a reasonable repeat delay, such as 5 or 10 seconds... does NOT cause this behavior. If you're still not convinced, test it out yourself, and view the results. llTeleportAgentHome() by itself does not cause an agent to crash when used responsibly.


Now, onto the generalization. Not all security scripts restrict *all* avatars from an area. If your intention is not privacy, but grief-protection, there is no tool, to date, that is more effective. If you're not a griefer, you have nothing to worry about, and you can fly around as you please. But if you think you can C4, use push scripts, or otherwise harass people on my property, don't expect to be able to be able to stay. And simply ban the griefer from the land, so they can sit at the edge of the property and continue to harrass? I don't think so.


Again - used in this manner, its not a privacy tool - its a keeping the peace tool. If I had my choice, I'd disable the ability to run grief-inducing items on my property, and not carry a ban list at all. I'd much rather prevent the behavior than the individual. But it doesn't work that way today.


If the community wants to disable the llTeleportAgentHome() function, Fine. But also disable all forms of push-scripts, physics-scripts, etc....as those can be abused no differently than llTeleportAgentHome() if used for nefarious purposes.

Travis

If you've ever read a post by me on this topic, you should know I am very much opposed to the client-crashing scripts, first of all.

My point is this: Yes, in the "real world" we have an evolved society that generaly frowns on bodily tossing a person out of your house or setting booby traps. But in the real world, people also tend to respect things like closed doors and "Do not enter" signs, and when they dont there are laws in place to punish them for being self-centered twits.

The second half of the societal norms has to evolve though before the first will.

In other words, I'll take down my security scripts when they are no longer needed to get 10 galdarn minutes of privacy in my workshop 700 meters in the sky that has no doors to get into and is /clearly/ not a tourist attraction or any place else you belong if you /aren't me/.

Point taken and well put; thanks for the clarification. And although I wasn't clear, I wasn't insinuating that you were making or condoning crash-banners.

Again, this feature request is simply to have a dialog box appear when a script tries to teleport you, asking your permission. It is not to disable llTeleportAgentHome().

If I am hit by a push script (for instance) a dialog box appears asking if I would like to report the act as abuse. I don't believe we have that option with teleportation. It seems fair that we be allowed a chance to consent to being teleported.

Respectfully, Pol.... you're mistaken. When someone fires off a C4 bomb on my property, it launches everyone inside into the next sim. No dialog box, no warning. Same thing for Seburos.... one minute you're having a grand time chatting with your friends... the next minute... you're somewhere 300m south of where you started.

Requesting permission to be teleported essentially removes its functionality as an anti-grief tool, where it is most useful. I don't think a griefer rezzing hundreds of bananna phones is going to "accept" their teleport home.

Now, if you wanted to make llTeleportAgentHome() less desirable as a *privacy* device.... I'd have no issue with that. IMHO.... teleport home is excessive and unneccesary as used as a privacy device...... unless you're lucky enough to have a private sim, outside of anyone's flight path.

Travis