Discussion on a change to llTeleportAgent().

[Gabriele Graves]

38 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

How exactly do you justify llTelportAgentHome when you say things like "permission must be granted explicitly regardless of how badly something is desired?" I desire you off my land, but the same "no consent" argument applies there too.

The more I've thought about Kyrah's point, I don't see much (negative) difference between what we have and what we could have.

This proposal isn't going to remove anyone from the owner's land.  It is only going to move people around the same owner's land so the stated goal of removal isn't being met.  So what is it really for?

The right of the land owner to remove you from the land isn't in question here and nobody is asserting that a person's right to be on the property trumps that person's desire to have you gone.  That is a natural expectation for anyone in SL or RL.  However, nobody is expecting to potentially have their avatar being shifted all over the place if a land owner so desires, there is simply nothing stopping them ping-ponging you around.

llTeleportAgentHome() isn't a great tool and I have stated that before as well, however apart from llEjectFromLand() which will not met the stated goal when all the land is owned by the same owner, it is all there is that does the job when this proposal clearly won't.

Personally I think there should just be something like llRemoveAgentFromLand() and let LL decide how that happens so that it can be refined to have the most minimal impact possible.  Let's not worry about how it is achieved as long as it is and cannot be abused.  It should work once and the effect is the avatar is gone from that owner's land, no need for that user to be messed with further.  Perhaps even with a message to the user telling them that they are no longer welcome at that land.

So you really cannot tell the difference between something that is a single use tool to remove you from the land to asking for the ability to move people all over your land at your whim?  It seems your desire to have a multi-purpose teleport tool that can be easily abused is clouding your thinking.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Gabriele Graves

[Lucia Nightfire]

10 hours ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

You fly over the parcel at 4000 meters, or cross a bit of the corner at ground level, and a script teleports you into the lobby of a skybox.

Or a more malicious example:

while (TRUE) { llTeleportAgent(agent, "", trap, ZERO_VECTOR); }

 

 

9 hours ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

An improvement on llTeleportAgent could be to silently discard a teleport that won't move you more than 1m.

(If anything, to avoid people using it as a really bad move2target)

Just a small FYI.

llTeleportAgent() and llTeleportAgentGlobalCoords() have a low repeat usage threshold, like a burst of 3 executions in 3 seconds then repeated failure until another 3 seconds of no execution attempts before another tp is allowed. This goes for all same-owner scripts in multiple objects in the region.

There is a 2 meter minimum distance requirement.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Lucia Nightfire

[Mollymews]

10 hours ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

I suspect the biggest issue is script-side revocation handling

this makes sense. Am not sure how Stand does revoke but would be the same way I suppose

the time to hunt thru every script on the region could take some time as well. With Stand then the hunt is quite short I suppose, being limited to the scripts in the object sat on

[Wulfie Reanimator]

1 hour ago, Gabriele Graves said:

This proposal isn't going to remove anyone from the owner's land.  It is only going to move people around the same owner's land so the stated goal of removal isn't being met.  So what is it really for?

The right of the land owner to remove you from the land isn't in question here and nobody is asserting that a person's right to be on the property trumps that person's desire to have you gone.  That is a natural expectation for anyone in SL or RL.  However, nobody is expecting to potentially have their avatar being shifted all over the place if a land owner so desires, there is simply nothing stopping them ping-ponging you around.

llTeleportAgentHome() isn't a great tool and I have stated that before as well, however apart from llEjectFromLand() which will not met the stated goal when all the land is owned by the same owner, it is all there is that does the job when this proposal clearly won't.

Personally I think there should just be something like llRemoveAgentFromLand() and let LL decide how that happens so that it can be refined to have the most minimal impact possible.  Let's not worry about how it is achieved as long as it is and cannot be abused.  It should work once and the effect is the avatar is gone from that owner's land, no need for that user to be messed with further.  Perhaps even with a message to the user telling them that they are no longer welcome at that land.

So you really cannot tell the difference between something that is a single use tool to remove you from the land to asking for the ability to move people all over your land at your whim?  It seems your desire to have a multi-purpose teleport tool that can be easily abused is clouding your thinking.

I have already given examples of situations where teleporting without explicit permission (including Experiences) greatly benefits creators in creating products and systems for willing participants. I think you're the one too focused on the potential downsides and ignoring all the upsides or the downsides of not having a way for a single script to seamlessly handle teleportation of multiple avatars. I guess we'll be at an impasse on that.

I have no stake in this feature. LL could remove llTeleportAgent completely and I would not care beyond the principle of creativity. I've literally never used this function and I don't have any plans to, because the things I like to make don't need it.

I also don't like your argument that some things are just "naturally expected." Things should be justified, the word "moral" keeps coming to mind but I'm not sure that's what I'm looking for. You should be able to explain what your opinion of "I can eject you from my home" is based on, and likewise you should be able to explain what your opinion of "I can't move you to another spot in my home" is based on. Why does the right of another person become more important in one situation but not both?

It's a rhetorical question.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Gabriele Graves]

I have stated my reasons again and again which are quite clear and a perfectly reasonable point of view.  That you refuse to acknowledge them is not my concern.  Benefiting creators and willing participants to the detriment of others should not be the sole principle.  You say you don't care about this feature and your posts don't back that stance up.  I think you care very much.

[Wulfie Reanimator]

10 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I have stated my reasons again and again which are quite clear and a perfectly reasonable point of view.  That you refuse to acknowledge them is not my concern.  Benefiting creators and willing participants to the detriment of others should not be the sole principle.  You say you don't care about this feature and your posts don't back that stance up.  I think you care very much.

It's an interesting/entertaining discussion. I like debating opinions in general, it doesn't even need to be scripting related.

If you go back to page one and follow the things I've said, I've been very conservative about how this function should work, if it were to change.

On 1/13/2021 at 12:35 AM, Wulfie Reanimator said:

What I would want most is teleportation of anyone (with permission) within the current region.

From there, I'd want intra-region teleportation without permissions, but I don't think that's ever going to be possible without an Experience.

And least importantly (for me), teleportation of anyone (with permission) to any landmark.

On 1/15/2021 at 6:46 PM, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Right now, llTeleportAgent requires permission AND it only works on the script's owner.

Instead, llTeleportAgent should be able to teleport anyone as long as permission has been granted as normal. None of these behavior changes to how permissions work are necessary, and only complicate the changes that could be done.

The "only teleport owner" restriction seems overly strict, even though there is undeniably potential for griefing.

On 1/15/2021 at 7:19 PM, Wulfie Reanimator said:

The only thing that should change, to make this a viable feature request, is to simply lift the "owner only" restriction. Anything extra, and we're looking at LL most likely not implementing it, or implementing it poorly.

On 1/15/2021 at 11:28 PM, Wulfie Reanimator said:

The only difference between llTeleportAgent with/without an Experience should be the way permissions are granted.

The difference right now is that llTeleportAgent with an Experience can teleport anyone, while llTeleportAgent without an Experience can only teleport the owner.

Are these opinions (which I still hold) that radical?

Edited January 20, 2021 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Gabriele Graves]

You have cherry-picked your posts and ignored the ones where some of those opinions seem to have changed.  "Radical" is your word, not mine so I decline to answer that question.

It is simple really, you either agree that an explicit grant should be sought when calling llTeleportHome() for another avatar or you don't.  If you don't then we don't have any common ground on this.

[Kyrah Abattoir]

8 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Nothing in either those things suggests that land owner should be able to teleport people anywhere they please at any time when on their land.

It isn't tacit permission.  Nobody can assume permission from others, it must be granted explicitly or it isn't permission regardless of how badly something is desired.

That is ultimately your opinion, nothing more.

  

5 hours ago, Lucia Nightfire said:

llTeleportAgent() and llTeleportAgentGlobalCoords() have a low repeat usage threshold, like a burst of 3 executions in 3 seconds then repeated failure until another 3 seconds of no execution attempts before another tp is allowed. This goes for all same-owner scripts in multiple objects in the region.

Then the one concern I might have had is already satisfied.

  

5 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

So you really cannot tell the difference between something that is a single use tool to remove you from the land to asking for the ability to move people all over your land at your whim?  It seems your desire to have a multi-purpose teleport tool that can be easily abused is clouding your thinking.

Oh no it is definitely different, but as long as you can freely teleport away, I can't see how this can be abused. I sure would prefer to get teleported back to ground level if I intrude in someone's skybox, instead of being sent home.

When you visit someone's land you agree to follow the rules, within the limitations of the SecondLife term of service, if you don't like the rules, or choose to ignore them, you are usually required to go someplace else. The tools are lacking to enforce those rules is not really relevant as long as the landowner can remove you at their discretion.

Therefore there is no real downside in providing more tools to mechanically enforce those rules, so long as you always have the ability to refuse them by leaving.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Kyrah Abattoir

[Gabriele Graves]

5 hours ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

That is ultimately your opinion, nothing more.

I have said nothing otherwise.

5 hours ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

  

Then the one concern I might have had is already satisfied.

  

Oh no it is definitely different, but as long as you can freely teleport away, I can't see how this can be abused. I sure would prefer to get teleported back to ground level if I intrude in someone's skybox, instead of being sent home.

When you visit someone's land you agree to follow the rules, within the limitations of the SecondLife term of service, if you don't like the rules, or choose to ignore them, you are usually required to go someplace else. The tools are lacking to enforce those rules is not really relevant as long as the landowner can remove you at their discretion.

Therefore there is no real downside in providing more tools to mechanically enforce those rules, so long as you always have the ability to refuse them by leaving.

This is your opinion as well, nothing more.

[Wulfie Reanimator]

9 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

You have cherry-picked your posts and ignored the ones where some of those opinions seem to have changed.  "Radical" is your word, not mine so I decline to answer that question.

It is simple really, you either agree that an explicit grant should be sought when calling llTeleportHome() for another avatar or you don't.  If you don't then we don't have any common ground on this.

I see value (which I didn't before) in both ways after Kyrah made a point I agreed with and now I'm exploring your counter-opinion.

My "cherry picked" posts were specifically quoted to show that "let's get rid of permissions" is not all I have said. You accuse me without nuance.

Like I said, I have no stake on the outcome. Change or no change, permission or no permission, I'm fine with all of it because I am able to consider opposing opinions. I don't think you should vilify me for that.

 

I'm reminded by avatar freezing. This is one the tools officially available to land owners.

Quote

Once frozen, an avatar stops flying, falls to the ground, and is unable to move or chat in open chat for up to 30 seconds until the freeze expires.

Were you aware of this, and what's your opinion on it? Does this violate the visitor's rights?

Edited January 20, 2021 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Kyrah Abattoir]

1 hour ago, Gabriele Graves said:

This is your opinion as well, nothing more.

Pretty weak.

Your argument is grounded in appeal to some nebulous "natural rights", mine is factual on the relationship between land owners and their guests, as framed by the existing systems.

We already can turn it up to 100, therefore there is no issue in implementing 1 to 99.

[Gabriele Graves]

1 hour ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

My "cherry picked" posts were specifically quoted to show that "let's get rid of permissions" is not all I have said. You accuse me without nuance.

I never once said they were all you said.  I am not accusing you of anything either.

1 hour ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

I'm reminded by avatar freezing. This is one the tools officially available to land owners.

Were you aware of this, and what's your opinion on it? Does this violate the visitor's rights?

I am aware of avatar freezing.  I don't like it much but the owner has to be present for that, it cannot be scripted - that makes a big difference.  If the land owner could script freezes on an ongoing basis then that would be far worse.

[Kyrah Abattoir]

9 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I am aware of avatar freezing.  I don't like it much but the owner has to be present for that, it cannot be scripted - that makes a big difference.  If the land owner could script freezes on an ongoing basis then that would be far worse.

But they can, it is called a bot.

The scripting toolset shouldn't be gimpled solely to make something "inconvenient" to do because people will do it anyway, it should be designed to minimize the server/sim overhead and be as straightforward as possible to achieve the goal of the scripter.

Whether it can be scripted is not relevant as long as it is something a landowner is allowed to do. It not being scriptable is just the system lagging behind.

I'll take an extreme example: If i ran a weird themed hangout in SL where avatars with last names go in room A and avatéars without last names go to room B, you would have to either comply, or be removed.

What is the difference between someone telling you to do something where you have to comply or be removed, versus the system doing it.

You do not get a choice either way.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Kyrah Abattoir

[Gabriele Graves]

1 hour ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

Pretty weak.

Of course, a weak reminder that those are only my opinions deserves nothing more.

1 hour ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

Your argument is grounded in appeal to some nebulous "natural rights", mine is factual on the relationship between land owners and their guests, as framed by the existing systems.

We already can turn it up to 100, therefore there is no issue in implementing 1 to 99.

How strange that you characterize my stance as nebulous when there is precedence in the fact I cannot even teleport myself without being asked for permission on my land currently and teleporting others to any place I choose cannot be done at all.  Right there is an established relationship between land owners and guests.

Your facts aren't facts at all.

I don't find it at all surprising though when your own stance seems to be that a land owner should be able to do anything they want to another user on their land.  That isn't written down anywhere as any kind of rule or goal as far as I know.  The established case here clearly has limits to that land user power.  You stance is based on nothing more than your own belief of what should be.  I find that to be quite nebulous actually.

[Gabriele Graves]

7 minutes ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

But they can, it is called a bot.

The scripting toolset shouldn't be gimpled solely to make something "inconvenient" to do because people will do it anyway, it should be designed to minimize the server/sim overhead and be as straightforward as possible to achieve the goal of the scripter.

Whether it can be scripted is not relevant as long as it is something a landowner is allowed to do. It not being scriptable is just the system lagging behind.

I'll take an extreme example: If i ran a weird themed hangout in SL where avatars with last names go in room A and avatéars without last names go to room B, you would have to either comply, or be removed.

What is the difference between someone telling you to do something where you have to comply or be removed, versus the system doing it.

You do not get a choice either way.

Of course it is relevant, there is good reason to have some things that can only be done when owner is present.  It helps prevent abuse.  Sure you can get around that with a bot but I bet when it was introduced that abuse of it was not considered.

We cannot help what is there, what we can help is adding more problems that we have already.  It is my goal to state my objections to causing more problems.

[Qie Niangao]

9 hours ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

I sure would prefer to get teleported back to ground level if I intrude in someone's skybox, instead of being sent home.

This strikes me as an important use-case for this functionality, operating without permissions (other than presence on the parcel and/or other land on the region owned by the same agent or group).

If the options are this, or llTeleportAgentHome or llEjectFromLand or something even more disruptive (a bunch of pushes, or an attack of killer bees on a damage-enabled parcel), I guess I need some help to understand how this is worse.

(Like Wulfie, I have no skin in this game, even though at the start of the thread I thought I did. My stuff should stay in an Experience, and my problem with the user terror induced by the Experience permissions dialog is quite orthogonal to this.)

Edited January 20, 2021 by Qie Niangao
(it's llEjectFromLand, not -FromParcel)

[Kyrah Abattoir]

11 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

My stuff should stay in an Experience, and my problem with the user terror induced by the Experience permissions dialog is quite orthogonal to this.

Most of my tests use an experience too, it's sort of funny and sad to see the amount of people who bump into my experience "gate" realize that it won't open if they don't accept the experience, and rather than take the experience, they rez a cube, sit on it, drag it through the gate...

...and get kicked home.

This is *****ty for users but is the only way to handle this case at the moment (I have nowhere to "eject" people, since I own the whole region).

Better control would allow us to make things so much better.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Kyrah Abattoir

[Gabriele Graves]

13 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

This strikes me as an important use-case for this functionality, operating without permissions (other than presence on the parcel and/or other land on the region owned by the same agent or group).

If the options are this, or llTeleportAgentHome or llEjectFromLand or something even more disruptive (a bunch of pushes, or an attack of killer bees on a damage-enabled parcel), I guess I need some help to understand how this is worse.

Strangely enough I actually agree with both you and Kyrah on this aspect, if...IF, it were wrapped up in something that could be used in no other way or for any other purpose.  That is why I proposed llRemoveAgentFromLand().  On a stand-alone region, this is exactly what it could do.  On a parcel beside a public road, it could move you there instead.

Wanting to move a user to a more desired spot doesn't justify having a general purpose teleport tool that is open to abuse.

Edited January 20, 2021 by Gabriele Graves

[Kyrah Abattoir]

The thing is that just because one might want to move you away from where you currently are on their land doesn't necessarily mean they want you off their property entirely.

So what would be this potential for abuse? Demonstrate in what ways it would be objectively worse than being sent home (which can log you out, and revert attachments)?

[Gabriele Graves]

40 minutes ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

The thing is that just because one might want to move you away from where you currently are on their land doesn't necessarily mean they want you off their property entirely.

That is what landing points are for.  Perhaps they could be made more flexible but essentially the feature is there.

Quote

So what would be this potential for abuse? Demonstrate in what ways it would be objectively worse than being sent home (which can log you out, and revert attachments)?

Of the top of my head:

The land owner decides at any point in time to randomly teleport you anywhere on their land, they could do this multiple times for no good reason.  They could teleport you to a place that display's disturbing content that is unwelcome.  They could repeated teleport you high in the air to watch you fall or teleport you to a launch pad that launches you across their land.  Leaving you no option but to teleport away.  A new user may not even realise that they can get out of this.

You may not see that as abuse but nonetheless it is and some people will do this for kicks.

I am sure there are others that would be discovered if this were to go live.  People are nothing if not inventive.

Perhaps llTeleportAgentHome() needs to be replaced with llTeleportAgentBack() instead sends you to the place you originated from.  Doesn't help with potential logouts but if you are forced to teleport away anyway...

You are coming from the point of view that it will only be used appropriately in that case what is the objection to a tool that can only be used appropriately?

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Gabriele Graves

[Mollymews]

56 minutes ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

 (I have nowhere to "eject" people, since I own the whole region).

i don't have access to a whole region to experiment on, but as I remember a way to do this is cut a safe zone parcel. When llEject from the main parcel the agent should end up on the safe zone

[Mollymews]

1 hour ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

Most of my tests use an experience too, it's sort of funny and sad to see the amount of people who bump into my experience "gate" realize that it won't open if they don't accept the experience, and rather than take the experience, they rez a cube, sit on it, drag it through the gate...

...and get kicked home.

this is close to the heart of the proposal I think

to move visitors who choose not to join our experience (grant teleport permission), and when they don't then apply to them the experience of being teleported elsewhere on our property, even tho they have already declined this

 

[Wulfie Reanimator]

2 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

You may not see that as abuse but nonetheless it is and some people will do this for kicks.

...

You are coming from the point of view that it will only be used appropriately in that case what is the objection to a tool that can only be used appropriately?

Where do you get the impression that anyone in this thread thinks:

• Repeatedly teleporting an avatar around to try and remove control from them is not griefing.
• This function will only be used appropriately.
• All uses of this function will be justified.

It's been acknowledged time and time again that of course there can and will be some griefing. No one has argued otherwise.

3 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

How strange that you characterize my stance as nebulous when there is precedence in the fact I cannot even teleport myself without being asked for permission on my land currently and teleporting others to any place I choose cannot be done at all.  Right there is an established relationship between land owners and guests.

You need to formally request permission even just to animate yourself, even if the script is attached to your avatar. This alone doesn't establish much, since most permissions are granted implicitly. Saying "the function should work like this because this is how it works now" is circular thinking.

3 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I don't find it at all surprising though when your own stance seems to be that a land owner should be able to do anything they want to another user on their land.  That isn't written down anywhere as any kind of rule or goal as far as I know.  The established case here clearly has limits to that land user power.  You stance is based on nothing more than your own belief of what should be.  I find that to be quite nebulous actually.

You can do whatever you want in SL as long as it doesn't go against LL's policies. If LL doesn't explicitly say you can't do it, it's up to us to make the decision. This means that you can do on your land as you wish, but you still cannot intentionally grief your visitors as that is against LL's policies.

It's also been reiterated multiple times over the years by various Lindens in more casual discussions that this is the case.

To rephrase what I said, the Terms and Conditions (3.4.) say:

Quote

You may permit or deny other users to access your Virtual Land on terms determined by you. Any agreement you make with other users relating to use or access to your Virtual Land must be consistent with the Agreements, and no such agreement can abrogate, nullify, void or modify the Agreements.

("Agreements" means "Terms of Service and Privacy Policy")

If we look beyond the limited scope of how scripts technically work, or the specific wording of the policies, land owners really do have the final say on what happens on their land in practice.

• Land owners can and do discriminate against the people in their land.
• Land owners can and do invent completely nonsensical rules for their land.
• Linden Lab will not step in to moderate the content or behavior of land owners.
• If you've ever complained about someone's land, most people will respond with "just leave."

Anyway, I find this mindset of "people might do bad things with it" really troubling and self-limiting, but also easily defeated by its logical extreme. We should toootally disable llInstantMessage since I can't imagine many uses for it besides cross-grid spamming and that is the experience I literally have. (Auto-subscribers anyone?) We should never teach people how hacking or cyber security works because that might breed more hackers. We should ban knives because their only purpose is to cut, which is to inflict damage.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Gabriele Graves]

1 hour ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Where do you get the impression that anyone in this thread thinks:

• Repeatedly teleporting an avatar around to try and remove control from them is not griefing.
• This function will only be used appropriately.
• All uses of this function will be justified.

I get my impressions about what people think from what people have written as no doubt you get yours about what I think from mine.

Quote

It's been acknowledged time and time again that of course there can and will be griefing. No one has argued otherwise.

I was responding to Kyrah's question.

Quote

You need to formally request permission even just to animate yourself, even if the script is attached to your avatar. This alone doesn't establish much, since many permissions are granted implicitly. Saying "this function should work like this because this is how it works now" is circular thinking.

I didn't mention animate, I mentioned teleport and it is there to establish that you understand and agree that the script in the object you are wearing (which you may not have written) wants to teleport you.  It is not circular thinking to point to something already established to say there is a precedent, to say that is ridiculous.  Here is another precedent it is established that land owners cannot just teleport you as they please.  It isn't for a lack of a function that teleports or foresight and I am sure someone had to think about it before putting that limitation in.  Limitations like that don't just inherently happen.  It says that some thought was put into it and this was considered to be a safe option.  It could also be an indicator of LL was thinking about the rights of land owners back then.

Quote

You can do whatever you want in SL as long as it doesn't go against LL's policies. If LL doesn't explicitly say you can't do it, it's up to us to make the decision. This means that you can do on your land as you wish, but you still cannot intentionally grief your visitors as that is against LL's policies.

It's also been reiterated multiple times over the years by various Lindens in more casual discussions that this is the case.

To rephrase what I said, the Terms and Conditions (3.4.) say:

If we look beyond the limited scope of how scripts technically work, land owners really do have the final say on what happens on their land in practice.

• A land owner can discriminate against the people in their land.
• A land owner can invent completely nonsensical rules for their land.
• Linden Lab will not step in to moderate content or behavior of land owners.
• If you've ever complained about someone's land, most people will respond with "just leave."

Exactly, so if you cannot intentionally grief people on your land there are clearly limits and it is not absolute power.  That is what I have been saying all along and I have never disputed any of the other things a land owner may do.

Quote

Anyway, I find this mindset of "people might do bad things with it" really troubling and self-limiting, but also easily defeated by its logical extreme. We should toootally disable llInstantMessage since I can't imagine many uses for it besides cross-grid spamming and that is the experience I literally have (auto-subscribers anyone?). We should never teach people how hacking or cyber security works because that might breed more hackers. We should ban hammers and knives, since they are obviously a force for evil.

I find this mindset of thinking you can "defeat" someone else's opinions by declaring them so absolutely hilarious.  Trying to "defeat" my opinions using Reductio ad absurdum is pretty obvious though.

Look, it doesn't really matter what I respond with, you will just mis-characterize what I write, come back with a bunch of "whataboutisms" and hand-wavy dismissals and minimizations as you have above and in previous posts in the guise of debating with me.  The very basis of our thinking and opinion on this is so very far apart that I doubt we have any common ground what-so-ever.

You just don't agree with my fundamental position and don't seem to like the way I express my strong opinions on it.  That's fine I never expected you or any one else to.  I don't know what you expect to achieve though.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Gabriele Graves

[Wulfie Reanimator]

41 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I didn't mentioned animate, I mentioned teleport and it is there to establish that you understand and agree that the script in the object you are wearing (which you may not have written) wants to teleport you.  It is not circular thinking to point to something already established to say there is a precedent, to say that is ridiculous.  Here is another precedent it is established that land owners cannot just teleport you as they please.  It isn't for a lack of a function that teleports or foresight and I am sure someone had to think about it before putting that limitation in.  Limitations like that don't just inherently happen.  It says that some thought was put into it and this was considered to be a safe option.  It could also be an indicator of LL was thinking about the rights of land owners back then.

The "owner only" limitation was part of the initial feature request, it does not seem to be something LL decided to add in to make it safer than intended. I wish I was able to find the initial suggestion on the JIRA, if that's even possible, but we have the official wiki history to reference.

If you go all the way down to the first entry, on 4th of Feb 2007, you'll see that even then it says:

"Agent must be the script owner or on script owner's land."

The function was not released until 24th of July 2012.

41 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I find this mindset of thinking you can "defeat" someone else's opinions by declaring them so absolutely hilarious.  Trying to "defeat" my opinions using Reductio ad absurdum is pretty obvious though.

Fair point.

41 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

You just don't agree with my fundamental position and don't seem to like the way I express my strong opinions on it.  That's fine I never expected you or any one else to.  I don't know what you expect to achieve though.

I don't like or dislike your opinion, I'm interested in the how and why of what you think, since you're the most active one arguing against lifting the "owner only" restriction, or at least the implicit permissions while on the owner's land.

41 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Exactly, so if you cannot intentionally grief people on your land there are clearly limits and it is not absolute power.  That is what I have been saying all along and I have never disputed any of the other things a land owner may do.

You still haven't addressed the issue of why LL shouldn't allow the legitimate use of llTeleportAgent on others without an Experience. Nobody wants to allow griefing. Griefing will still be against the rules. Griefing can already be done through an Experience, but it doesn't seem to be happening.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Wulfie Reanimator