Would you use an "attachment-scope Experience"?

[Extrude Ragu]

Fact of the matter is all I have to do to make a relay is make a script that listens for some messages, does some processing and and send those messages to the viewer.

There's nothing stopping me selling you an attachment that puts a big black overlay over your screen when you attach it via RLV and then locking the box to your screen in such a way you can't detach it. It's so easy to grief a user with RLV it is comical.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

1 minute ago, Extrude Ragu said:

There's nothing stopping me selling you an attachment that puts a big black overlay over your screen when you attach it via RLV and then locking the box to your screen in such a way you can't detach it.

Well nothing except the negative reviews on the MP, and the Abuse reports for not mentioning that your trash-product contained stealthed rlv griefer-ware, or you getting banned from the Grid for distributing malicious griefer-ware items, after a tidalwave of Abuse Reports.

 

4 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

It's so easy to grief a user with RLV it is comical.

It's comically easy for some zero-talent failed artist wannabe to grief visitors to their "public venue" with Experience code too.

Which is why attempts to cheat the "no-grid-wide-experience for non-LL-employees" rule need to be slapped down hard.

[Extrude Ragu]

1 minute ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Well nothing except the negative reviews on the MP, and the Abuse reports for not mentioning that your trash-product contained stealthed rlv griefer-ware

I don't think there's actually anything in the TOS about merchants having to mention what RLV functionality the products a merchant sells have. I could literally name my product 'surprise!' and it would be considered 'as advertised'.

As for negative reviews, that doesn't seem to have stopped a lot of MP sellers, who have found ways around that issue.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

3 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

I don't think there's actually anything in the TOS about merchants having to mention what RLV functionality the products a merchant sells have. I could literally name my product 'surprise!' and it would be considered 'as advertised'.

As for negative reviews, that doesn't seem to have stopped a lot of MP sellers, who have found ways around that issue.

The NON RLV enabled customers would get no surprise, and would flag you for fraudulent MP listings, and the RLV enabled customers would Abuse Report you for griefing.

Goodbye SL for you.

Now can you possibly STOP derailing a thread about sordid attempts to dodge the "no grid wide experience abuse" rule, with fraudulent attacks on RLV viewers, RLV merchants and RLV users. Or should we just report ALL your posts in this thread for deliberate dis-information with intent to outrage and deceive.

 

[Extrude Ragu]

7 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

It's comically easy for some zero-talent failed artist wannabe to grief visitors to their "public venue" with Experience code too.

Yes but the difference is, I can leave that experience, and I can report it for griefing or doing something that is contrary to its age rating to me. LL officially recognizes it as abuse and publicly states that they act on it.

There's no such control with RLV other than a global 'on/off'. You're entirely trusting merchants to advertise all RLV functionality of their products or to use well known implementations.

Of course RLV has much more extensive commands than Experiences. I use RLV myself and of course experiences don't come close to replacing RLV in terms of functionality, but the permissions system of experiences is objectively better for a new user to make informed decisions compared to RLV.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

1 minute ago, Extrude Ragu said:

You're entirely trusting merchants to advertise all RLV functionality of their products

I'm trusting merchants to advertise "selling points" that allow them to charge substantially more for the product because it's for a niche market, and to avoid negative reviews on the MP, and negative word of mouth in world. I trust them to use well known implementations like OC for theor "collars" because it's EASIER than them making their own.

 

It's the same reason most small game studios use the "Useless Engine Build Your Own First Person Shooter Kit (tm)".

 

RLV users tend to talk to each other, a lot, discussing and comparing RLV products far more than say complete strangers half a grid apart will about some miniskirt.

 

Word spreads fast about bloody awful RLV products.

 

Now have you finished your dis-informational scaremongering derail, can we get back to why people like YOU should NEVER be allowed to use attachments to dodge the "no grid wide experiences" rule?

 

[Extrude Ragu]

Word spreads fast amongst oldbies, sure.

New users? No. Most have barely made a few friends and don't even know how to use a group.

[Solar Legion]

...

The last few interactions are part of why we cannot have nice and potentially useful things and part of why some projects get rushed out the door (a smaller part but still).

Can someone kindly put the children into time-out?

Edited March 11 by Solar Legion

[Love Zhaoying]

24 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

...

The last few interactions are part of why we cannot have nice and potentially useful things and part of why some projects gets rushed out the door (a smaller part but still).

Can someone kindly put the children into time-out?

If we could just wrestle them back into their RLV-enabled diapers!

[Solar Legion]

Mildly amusing ...

But not really gonna help.

[Love Zhaoying]

12 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Mildly amusing ...

But not really gonna help.

Not the worst "Yelp!" review I've had.

[Prokofy Neva]

On 3/10/2024 at 7:47 AM, Qie Niangao said:

This seems like a scripting question but not really: scripts wouldn't much change. Rather, it's a user question: Would you be more likely to use an Experience if it were in force only when you wore an attachment that obtained your Experience permissions?

This isn't a big philosophical difference because Experiences can always be enabled and disabled in the simple viewer interface. Even though it's simple, though, it's not something people do very often, so it's easy to forget how simple it is. But I think we could make it even simpler and more "automatic" for users if the Experience permissions were stored in an attachment. An Experience attachment might be worn as part of an outfit, for example, like a role-play HUD or combat meter, etc. We're already accustomed to those attachments taking a whole bunch of permissions (they don't even need to ask) because we know they're only in force while worn.

Unlike those other attachments that just grab permissions without asking, I'd suppose an Experience attachment would still need to explicitly ask for Experience permissions initially. I'd actually want it that way, although that presents an irrationally scarier prospect than it should, with that whole long list of things an Experience script can do. If users were actually presented with the list of (more and different) things RLV can do, they'd be similarly spooked, but I think the details of Experience permissions should remain explicit.

A practical change (and one that would require some server-side work) is that "attachment scope" shouldn't require land-scope enablement, but should comply with land-scope blocking. In practice, I don't recall ever seeing an Experience blocked at the parcel level, but it's an ability landowners should have. On the other hand, landowners shouldn't need to enable all Experiences individual visitors might want to have attached.

One example in a recent Forums thread reminded me that the ability of Experiences to help users effortlessly navigate their personal Environment settings is defeated because they cannot take that Experience with them to locations they may want to photograph or otherwise enjoy with their array of Environments. It can make a big difference, using a tailored UI script instead of wading through a viewer UI made cumbersome because it must support the entire array of use-cases. But scripts cannot help currently because they need Experience permissions to make user-requested Environment changes, and users aren't able to take those permissions with them. That's why I think we need this.

In order to jump into the ponds at the Woods Between the Worlds which take you to worlds like Narnia or Charn, you need to put on the yellow pond ring, which has the script inside to take you to the place (a teleport experience). So people readily get these rings (or the Dinkie necklace) and go on the experience. I think people would do this. I don't see how "Experiences" could be structured other than enabling on land. And people won't want to discover the hard way that they have to block all kinds of Experiences especially of the BDSM or war game variety on their land simply because now they can openly run wild throughout the grid.

[Dyna Mole]

Well, that went sideways.  Let's move on.