Hide my avatar from others

[Theresa Tennyson]

7 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

How can one make themselves selectively invisible?

Right now there aren't - it would be possible to do, which is what I meant. Any way that is used, though, can be gotten around.

[Maitimo]

11 hours ago, TatianaD Grigorovich said:

How am I controlling their Sl, they have have their own cyber existence certainly but they have no absolute right to see me?
I am trying to control MY SL by removing myself from the vision of those who wish me malice, SL is a fantasy world where that should be possible as long as I cause no harm or grief.

You've been told over and over again that the feature you want is a griefing feature. It's never going to happen. It is controlling because YOU would be the one who decides what OTHER PEOPLE should see.

Yes, everybody else DOES have an absolut right to see you. That's written into the TOS, in the part that says "thou shalt not affect any other user's experience".

• This fearure is CONTROLLING
• This feature is GRIEFING
• This feature is AGAINST THE TOS
• This feature CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT EVER HAPPEN

Honestly, your insistence on this feature, and your failure to recognise that it does, in fact, cause harm and grief, proves without any doubt that Secondlife is neither suitable for you nor is it compatible with your needs.  It would be much better for your own mental health if you leave altogether and find something more compatible to do.

[Love Zhaoying]

8 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

This has gone from being slightly amusing to completely comical.  If after 14 years, the OP hasn't learned how to deal with rude, obnoxious people, there is nothing anyone can say to help.  

"But I just dance in clubs for the love of the Art of Dance!"

[Arielle Popstar]

12 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I don't seem to find the same thing written in mine. there is rude and then there is abusive.

Nowadays these adjectives are nearly synonymous. Plenty of times within the forum I have seen people use the word abusive where a description of the incident equated to no more than rudeness in my own opinion whereas others saw it as abusive. Since the OP did not describe the actual incident, would your opinion change if she had used the word abusive in relation to the one's she would like to cancel?

[Arielle Popstar]

12 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

For someone who is against others telling you what you can and should do, I'm genuinely surprised by your agreement with the OP.    You (general you) shouldn't be able to 'tell' me what I can and cannot see in a public area of SL.

Because I see the ability to selectively prevent a rude or abusive person from seeing me as the most effective method for protecting oneself from further and potentially escalating incidents. Such rude or abusive persons have given up the right to who they see by virtue of their behaviour towards another. We give that ability in real life with restraining orders, bans for certain locations or if bad enough, throw the abuser in a prison where their view of public areas is taken away altogether.

All we are talking about here is taking away the ability to see the person they "feel" they have a right to be rude or abusive towards ie those who tend towards racism, misogyny and other jerks in general.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 hours ago, Maitimo said:

You've been told over and over again that the feature you want is a griefing feature. It's never going to happen. It is controlling because YOU would be the one who decides what OTHER PEOPLE should see.

Yes, everybody else DOES have an absolut right to see you. That's written into the TOS, in the part that says "thou shalt not affect any other user's experience".

• This fearure is CONTROLLING
• This feature is GRIEFING
• This feature is AGAINST THE TOS
• This feature CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT EVER HAPPEN

Honestly, your insistence on this feature, and your failure to recognise that it does, in fact, cause harm and grief, proves without any doubt that Secondlife is neither suitable for you nor is it compatible with your needs.  It would be much better for your own mental health if you leave altogether and find something more compatible to do.

It has already been pointed out that this sort of feature in no way adds to the ability for griefers to grief as they already can do so. This argument that it enhances griefers is getting old as it is not valid.

[Theresa Tennyson]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

We give that ability in real life with restraining orders, bans for certain locations or if bad enough, throw the abuser in a prison where their view of public areas is taken away altogether.

Can you do all that by yourself?

[Theresa Tennyson]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

It has already been pointed out that this sort of feature in no way adds to the ability for griefers to grief as they already can do so. This argument that it enhances griefers is getting old as it is not valid.

Can they grief a specific person invisibly while appearing to be an upstanding citizen to everyone else?

[Ceka Cianci]

38 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Nowadays these adjectives are nearly synonymous.

No they really aren't..

 

38 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Plenty of times within the forum I have seen people use the word abusive where a description of the incident equated to no more than rudeness in my own opinion whereas others saw it as abusive.

I try my best to look at something for what it is, Not what others feel it should be..

 

41 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Since the OP did not describe the actual incident, would your opinion change if she had used the word abusive in relation to the one's she would like to cancel?

I responded when she used both terms, and I'm still standing where I was at the beginning when I first replied..

It's the reason I even made the comparison from the get go.

Have you read the whole thread? Because what you are asking now, I pretty much went over in my very first post on like, page one.. hehehe

[Rowan Amore]

The difference, as it pertains to SL, is that abusive behavior is an actionable offense If one files an abuse report.  Being rude and an obnoxious a** is not.

 

 

Hiding the latter is the option LL has chosen to allow.  Let's stop comparing RL issues with SL.  

Edited December 8, 2022 by Rowan Amore

[Pixie Kobichenko]

On 12/3/2022 at 12:18 PM, TatianaD Grigorovich said:

why in a fantasy world should I not be able to control who sees me?
I dance in Sl & do not want rude people seeing my avi if I have blocked them, they can look at everyone else

Buy a bit of mainland, control access to it- block sounds from neighbors & click the option that no one can see you by camming over.  Plop down a dance ball or pole & some blinky lights & have at it.  

[Ceka Cianci]

Ceka cams into a club and Blocks and Blinds everyone to her presence..

like a microscopic virus she moves invisibly amongst the unknowing crowd  rubbing her evil hands together plotting.

what to do, what to do..

[Arielle Popstar]

Just now, Ceka Cianci said:

Ceka cams into a club and Blocks and Blinds everyone to her presence..

like a microscopic virus she moves invisibly amongst the unknowing crowd  rubbing her evil hands together plotting.

what to do, what to do..

You can do that now with a full body alpha.

[Theresa Tennyson]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

You can do that now with a full body alpha.

Can you make yourself invisible, stand in somebody's way so they keep walking into you, and complain to the region owners, "Arielle keeps walking into me! It has to be intentional because I'm right here where everyone sees me?"

[Ceka Cianci]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

You can do that now with a full body alpha.

I wouldn't need a full body alpha now.. I would just need to know how to block someone..

[Love Zhaoying]

Just now, Ceka Cianci said:

I wouldn't need a full body alpha now.. I would just need to know how to block someone..

I thought that only blocks you from seeing them.

[Ceka Cianci]

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I thought that only blocks you from seeing them.

That was just being silly about if we could blind everyone..

An alpha only blocks the body, it won't block name tags floating above our heads..

If they are dumb enough to keep their mesh body on.. then  lol

Edited December 8, 2022 by Ceka Cianci

[Maitimo]

33 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

That was just being silly about if we could blind everyone..

An alpha only blocks the body, it won't block name tags floating above our heads..

If they are dumb enough to keep their mesh body on.. then  lol

The name tag can be moved using debug settings. You can drop it underground.

As for mesh body etc, if you attach all your body, head, hair and rigged clothing to HUD attachment points instead of their usual ones, and wear a full body alpha, then YOU will see yourself as you should be, but everyone else will see you as invisible.

Note that this won't work if you are BOM -  you'll need applier skins for this to work. If you're BOM, everyone else will see your naked, doughy system body. It also only works for rigged attachments. 

The main thing that can't be changed however, is the presence of your dot on the minimap.

 

[Nick0678]

2 hours ago, Maitimo said:

The name tag can be moved using debug settings. You can drop it underground.

That's a local setting, everyone else will see your tag according to their client settings.

[Ceka Cianci]

4 hours ago, Maitimo said:

The name tag can be moved using debug settings. You can drop it underground.

As for mesh body etc, if you attach all your body, head, hair and rigged clothing to HUD attachment points instead of their usual ones, and wear a full body alpha, then YOU will see yourself as you should be, but everyone else will see you as invisible.

Note that this won't work if you are BOM -  you'll need applier skins for this to work. If you're BOM, everyone else will see your naked, doughy system body. It also only works for rigged attachments. 

The main thing that can't be changed however, is the presence of your dot on the minimap.

 

I was just being silly with the blinding a whole club play I did. 

A lot of people have in their minds that most griefers know what they are doing, when a lot are not pro's. There is all kinds of levels of that.. The griefing part of it was really never my point..

  I do think though, that it is better to have to have them go find those things out and set them up, rather than have them built into a feature that at a click of a button would be overreaching into someone else's account.

[Love Zhaoying]

28 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I was just being silly with the blinding a whole club play I did. 

Plus, if someone WERE to be invisible and just "stand there", a lot of others would use "bump detectors" to see WHO they bumped into!

I'm not sure if this is mentioned much in the thread but, even you block someone (assuming they cannot see YOU when you block them), they can always see you on a radar using a script..right?  And obviously, if someone is just "invisible" they would still be on radars (scripts using "llSensor()/llSensorRepeat()").

[Ceka Cianci]

55 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Plus, if someone WERE to be invisible and just "stand there", a lot of others would use "bump detectors" to see WHO they bumped into!

I'm not sure if this is mentioned much in the thread but, even you block someone (assuming they cannot see YOU when you block them), they can always see you on a radar using a script..right?  And obviously, if someone is just "invisible" they would still be on radars (scripts using "llSensor()/llSensorRepeat()").

Does bump show with an avatar bumping into another avatar? I thought it was just from being bumped by one of their objects or something they hit you with.. I can remember getting bumped pretty good and looking to see who it was and  nothing showing up from someone bumping into me, where it would show if they hit me with something..

Maybe I'm just remembering it wrong.. it's really been awhile since I even looked at that feature.

[Anna Salyx]

8 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Because I see the ability to selectively prevent a rude or abusive person from seeing me as the most effective method for protecting oneself from further and potentially escalating incidents. Such rude or abusive persons have given up the right to who they see by virtue of their behaviour towards another. We give that ability in real life with restraining orders, bans for certain locations or if bad enough, throw the abuser in a prison where their view of public areas is taken away altogether.

All we are talking about here is taking away the ability to see the person they "feel" they have a right to be rude or abusive towards ie those who tend towards racism, misogyny and other jerks in general.

The RL restraining order comment keeps popping up and after giving the idea a bit of thought, I could see that being a thing that could be implemented within Second Life as well. An avatar would have to petition SL (as a court equivalent) and lay out a reason or reasons why a given person should not be allowed to observe or interact with with the petitioner in the world. The behavior might not be enough to get the person banned from SL, but it might be enough to get the petitioner put onto the "target's" (for lack of a better word at the moment) block list as a non-removable entry. (or at least tied to the petitioners original "block"  if the petitions unblocks the 'target', the target's block list would be updated to rmeove the petitioner.)

This would remove the ability for a resident to arbitrarily affect and control another resident's SL experience, and yet still give recourse to someone who really feels this step is truely needed for protection.  Keeping in mind that this would have to be repeated for alts as well. And also keeping in mind that the answer could just as easily be "no, we don't think so."   This would make the process of real life restraining orders. (except for the alt part.)

Even as I believe this would be a good middle ground approach, I sincerely doubt Linden Lab would allocate resources to such a review board. Not to mention it could overloaded with a lot of frivolous petitions.  No, I think the discussion of event this remains academic and moot only.  it's just something that has percolated up.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Anna Salyx
add a last minute thought about block lists.

[Kathlen Onyx]

6 minutes ago, Anna Salyx said:

The RL restraining order comment keeps popping up and after giving the idea a bit of thought, I could see that being a thing that could be implemented within Second Life as well. An avatar would have to petition SL (as a court equivalent) and lay out a reason or reasons why a given person should not be allowed to observe or interact with with the petitioner in the world. The behavior might not be enough to get the person banned from SL, but it might be enough to get the petitioner put onto the "target's" (for lack of a better word at the moment) block list as a non-removable entry.

This would remove the ability for a resident to arbitrarily affect and control another resident's SL experience, and yet still give recourse to someone who really feels this step is truely needed for protection.  Keeping in mind that this would have to be repeated for alts as well. And also keeping in mind that the answer could just as easily be "no, we don't think so."   This would make the process of real life restraining orders. (except for the alt part.)

Even as I believe this would be a good middle ground approach, I sincerely doubt Linden Lab would allocate resources to such a review board. Not to mention it could overloaded with a lot of frivolous petitions.  No, I think the discussion of event this remains academic and moot only.  it's just something that has percolated up.

The problem with this is that if a person has harassed or offended a person enough to warrant a pretend restraining order then that should be a bannable offense which is dealt with with an AR report. There is no need for a middle ground approach at all. These tools are already in place.  

The OP has never said whether the person has been rude and abusive enough to warrant an AR report and if she has done that already.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Sam1 Bellisserian

[Anna Salyx]

3 minutes ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

The problem with this is that if a person has harassed or offended a person enough to warrant a pretend restraining order then that should be a bannable offense which is dealt with with an AR report. There is no need for a middle ground approach at all. These tools are already in place.  

The OP has never said whether they have been rude and abusive enough to warrant an AR report and if she has done that already.

I do get what you're saying as well, and I do agree.  At least mostly.  It's still good for academic discussion, still, and nothing more which is why I tossed it out.  I can envision some edge cases where it's not staking/abuse bannable actions but for the good of the public peace to allow for a two-way mutual block to be done, but they would be fairly rare.