I like the idea of restricting LSL a bit...

but I have a few questions.

First off I applaud LL for trying out a policy that, although it may cause some short term discomfort, will be for the benefit of SL as a whole. And I appreciate that LL is taking comments about the form and nature of the possible LSL restrictions.

So it's with this in mind that I'd like to ask my questions:

1) This isn't a global incapacitation of LSL for unverified users, is it? I was thinking that it might be sufficient to simply fence off some of the more potentially destructive commands.
No need to completely hamstring new scripters just learning the ropes.

2)Are there going to be tiered functions, or levels of trust (will some trusted users be more trusted than others?).

3)Will trusted users be trusted users in perpetuity? Would periods of inactivity alter the status?


That's it for my questions. I thank you for coming up with a balance between closing unverified registrations, which I do not support, and the status quo, which has been problematic.

And finally, thank you for your efforts in banning those responsible for these attacks. It's pretty clear that they or some of their friends are having a little hissy fit. Don't give in to them. Just keep banning them.

Thank you for your time.

Hey Luciftias, the rules for this are currently being internally discussed. While I don't have more info at this time, I am hoping (but not sure yet) that we'll be able to post them for the community (e.g., a blog post and/or forum thread like Andrew's grey goo posts in the past) for further discussion and feedback, because this has been asked so much about. Thanks for asking.