llRequestAgenData(uuid,DATA_ONLINE) changes resulting from Privacy Policy

[Rolig Loon]

Why do you care?  Why live like a turtle inside a shell, in fear of unnamed bad guys?  Your RL identity is unknown unless you choose to divulge it, so why do you care if anyone knows that your virtual identity is awake?  I find the culture of paranoia totally puzzling.

[Verena Vuckovic]

"Social environnemnt mean to meet some people . But 99 % of the users who can scan me if i am online are neither friends , neither contacts , neither old contacts , neither some people who are in common groups , neither some people who i have met one day . So it s normal to forbid them to know it.

Why they should ?"

 

You've lost me. Why would anyone who has never heard of you even want to know you are online ?

It makes about as much senses as all these alleged stalkees claiming that anonymous alts stalk them. Like...er....how the blazes does a person know that an anonymous alt is stalking them ?

And if the stalker is not anonymous, and you know who they are, wouldn't it be handy knowing when they are online ??

Sorry to introduce some logic into the discussion.

( switches off logic mode and hides it )

 

 

 

[Nickel Briand]

Even if hadn t given my RL identity , i have created a social network around my avatar .

Scripts don t belong to my social network . llRequestAgenData(uuid,DATA_ONLINE can threat it 

 

You complain i live as turtle , but it s exactly  what you do , and better than me : you tell it s safer to not divulge your RL identity. You prefer to live in second life with only anonymous identities 

 

If you are trying to justify llRequestAgenData(uuid,DATA_ONLINE)  only with the main idea "we are inside a social network , don t live hiden" , so you should , to keep logic ,  delete the IMS and oblige people to talk only in local chat . You should too delete all the options to mask some informations  in the profile , because you want to oblige people to Ipublish informations even to everyone .

And why to keep friendlists too ? it s useless if you obey to this idea  "we are inside a social network , don t live hiden" 

And why to have groups , too , if we follow your idea ?

 

I am sure it s not your goal . But it proves the weakness of your argue

 

[Nickel Briand]

"You've lost me. Why would anyone who has never heard of you even want to know you are online ?"

 

Good question .. why emerald has stored the links between avatars and IPs of some people they have never heard of them ?

Or why developerrs of  Redzone has stored some passwords of users they have never met ?

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Verena Vuckovic wrote:

"This whole rediculous issue could be resolved with no coding at all, just a change to the EULA stating that SL is a social enviornment and to not expect to be able to creep around invisibly. The busy flag is enough to tell friends that someone is not able to chat at the moment, there is no need for angst-causing skulduggery like masking logins."

 

Couldn't agree more.  We have this skulduggery masquerading as 'privacy'. As you say, there is Busy mode........and people can mute and so on......so I cannot see a single

legitimate

( non-skulduggery ) reason for a person logging into a

social environment

and effectively preteding they are not there at all.  A person's reasons for wanting to do so strike me as rather more dubious than mere 'privacy'.

Not to mention that it is utterly absurd that a person can pretend they are not online......yet anyone in their groups or on the same sim can see that they are. And that includes 'friends' from whom they think they are hiding their status. The net result being that such people get booted out of friends list.

After all.....what kind of

friends

pretend they are not even in the country ?

 

---

There's nothing in the TOS against skulduggery.  You have no right to know stuff about other users that they have not chosen to disclose.  If you are worried about your partner cheating on you or other e-drama nonsense, then pick a better partner.  Problem solved.

I should not be beholden to you or to explaining myself to you if I want to indulge in TOS abiding skulduggery.  It's none of your business whatsoever.

As it happens, I often wish for minimal non-necessary interuptions while I am busy, while still being able to immediately respond in the instance a customer wishes to contact me.  That's my business and if you see the fact that sometimes, I need to work without being tempted to socialize by open solicitation from friends  to do so, while still wanting to be available to immediately provide non-social customer service as skuldugery, that still does not make it any business of your's.

 

As to llReqestAgent....., of course it should not be broken but the e-drama reasons you suggest would be good reasons for at least considering that there might be some utility to doing so.

[Rolig Loon]

@Anaiya -- I can appreciate your perspective.  I find the "busy" option awkward and annoying so I rarely use it myself, but I do value my quiet work time and will protect it against unwanted intrusion.  Aside from occasionally being annoyed, though, I see little need to disable a very useful function -- one that I rely on fairly heavily.

I am not generally interested in finding out when someone is on line, but it's very important to me to know when they leave. I manage a fairly large team of volunteers who come in world to be available as mentors (librarians, actually, but that's basically their function).  It's important for potential users of our service to know when someone is available, so each volunteer logs in by clicking a HUD when s/he's available.  My system shows potential users that a librarian is on duty somewhere in SL, and it keeps track of how long the librarian was available.  It does that second job by logging the librarian OFF when s/he either clicks the HUD to log out, or when s/he logs out of SL.  We have several years of statistical data -- potentially useful for RL granting agencies and our RL sponsoring/partnering institutions -- to show how much time our staff puts in weekly, so having reliable login information is important to us.  It's also important for potential users to know when a a librarian is really available, and hasn't just left SL without turning off the HUD.  Removing the DATA_ONLINE functionality would break our system completely. 

As others in this thread have commented, there are an endless number of other practical, legitimate uses for DATA_ONLINE, many of which would become difficult or impossible to serve another way.  We can have philosophical differences of opinion about how much privacy we each feel comfortable with, but the practical matter is that a great many merchants and service groups in SL depend on the functionality of DATA_ONLINE.  It makes little sense to me to let the relatively small inconvenience that we all feel when someone knows we are in world outweigh the benefits of being able to see who else is around.

[Verena Vuckovic]

"I should not be beholden to you or to explaining myself to you if I want to indulge in TOS abiding skulduggery. It's none of your business whatsoever."

It most certainly is my business if I bump into.....as I have done a number of times......a 'friend' who is showing as offline. And nobody can answer the one simple question.....why would anyone who isn't on friends list and who has never heard of you....want to know if you are online anyway ??

 

"As it happens, I often wish for minimal non-necessary interuptions while I am busy, while still being able to immediately respond in the instance a customer wishes to contact me. "

Lol ! You've just totally contradicted yourself there.....and shown the utter absurdity of your argument. A person who has never heard of you is not going to give a monkey's if you are online or not.....even if it is displayed. So the only people who are going to want to communicate will BE those customers..............the one's you so desperately want to be able to communicate with but from whom you hide that you are even online !!

 

"That's my business and if you see the fact that sometimes, I need to work without being tempted to socialize by open solicitation from friends to do so, while still wanting to be available to immediately provide non-social customer service as skuldugery, that still does not make it any business of your's."

 

Lol ! Let's say I am a customer of yours. I have a complaint. I don't want to be fobbed off......I want answers right now. I look up your avatar in search.....and it says you are offline. So I take that at face value and don't communicate.

You seriously call that being available for your customers ??? What a farce.

 

 

[Nickel Briand]

"It most certainly is my business if I bump into.....as I have
done a number of times......a 'friend' who is showing as offline.
And nobody can answer the one simple question.....why would anyone
who isn't on friends list and who has never heard of you....
want to know if you are online anyway ??"

It s because you refuse to read and to listen . You react emotionnaly , i don t know why 

One day , somebody has asked me my credit card number .
Sincerly and honnestly i don t know why he was expecting with it . Maybe he had some excellent reasons .
Maybe it was for an humanist and philantropic reason .
But i have refused to given it .
And it s my right, it s my freedom.
Are you against the freedom ?

 

If you are persuaded "there are no reasons that someone who isn't on friends list
and who has never heard of you want to know if you are online anyway", so you admit we can
delete this functionnality because it s useless, and because this delete has no consequences

When there is an hole of security or a lack of privacy who exists , it s rationnal
to prevent it . There is no need to read the thoughts of others , to investigate longly  . But these others ( those who want to keep this function ) don t want to tell neither their reasons although they are more able than us to tell it

And the only fact that people who are against the delete, or the restriction of this function ,
are not able too to answer to your question , are not able to justify their real need,
make them suspicious about their activities



And again ..
Why emerald has stored the links between avatars and IPs of some people they have never heard of them ?
Or why developerrs of Redzone has stored some passwords of users they have never heard of them ?

Do you refuse the lessons of the past ?

[Verena Vuckovic]

"One day , somebody has asked me my credit card number ."

And the relevance of that to someone simply knowing your online status in a virtual word is ??

 

"And again ..
Why emerald has stored the links between avatars and IPs of some people they have never heard of them ?
Or why developerrs of Redzone has stored some passwords of users they have never heard of them ?"

 

Utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. Plus, I was campaigning against Redzone at a time when most people were saying there was nothing wrong with it.

Please keep up with the ludicrously irrelevant arguments. You make the case for scrapping being able to hide online status far better than I could possibly do.

And really...if you are that paranoid about so-called 'privacy' in SL....then may I suggest an absolutely 100% guaranteed way of ensuring it. The X in the top right of the screen.

 

 

 

[Nickel Briand]

You may easily with this :

- to know my hours of work

- to know when i am in holiday

It s already too much specifically if you are a detective agency , or if you are in my real network , but not in my second life network .

 

But of course , specialist spiers will use other informations about the user  and will do more crosschecks.

Justice have given some proves and verdicts that to try to know the hours of connection by wifi on internet was strongly illegal . I don t see why it should be different 

To know when i log in and when i log off is not your business .

It s the same thing with several softwares . You don t need to know when i turn on my computer when i turn it off .

You don t need to know which viewer i use or which software is installed in my computer  .t s not your business

And several softwares have respected this choice ; skype respect this choice , msn respect this choice , ICQ respect this choice , IMVU respect this choice , Blue mars respects this choice and the list is long .

Even this checkboxes in teh preferences of the viewer or in the web profiles should demontrate you that this was not a "paranoid" idea . If it was , why these options have been designed ?

And the viewer ( any viewer ) are pushing to the confusion . A noob when he comes to second life sees some tabs about privacy , checks or unchecks them and he realizes later it s  useless . It s a fault  to let scripts work and give more power then the viewers . You have lied to him

I have not agressed you , but you agress me in guessing my paranoia ? But should it mean than the whole internet users are paranoid , because users of other softwares have defended their privacy ? Are you sure that what you are thinking is not a thought of paranoia ?

Don t worry about the X . I know where it is and i will use it certainly if and when  i find it necessary . Sorry if you couldn t have my money and you will stay alone in your sim because you don t listen the other  users

 

 

After several posts , you have always refused to explain why you would need about my infos without my consent

[Roberta Messerchmitt]

Knowing if someone is online or not is irrelevent to security, the same information can be gotten by simply IMing the person and looking at the reply, if they are offline then the servers says so. Bots can do that just as well as human users and can track someones online status just fine without the LSL function.  Likewise removing features from ligitimate viewers has no effect on hardcore griefers since they do not use ligitimate viewers, they use ones with spying and attack tools that no legal viewers use and fool the server into thinking they are a ligitimate one. Bots can log on and check group lists of groups a victim is likely to be a member of (if anyone thinks the information is not processable by a weaponized viewer think again, if you can see it then code can get to it too), or can teleport around and look with ordinary radar functions for a person, it is not that hard to find someone like that if you know anything about them which a griefer hounding a particular person (like all the protests against online status checking insist it is used for) would know about their target.  People are creatures of habit after all.

On the other hand removing the llRepuestAgentData function from LSL severly breaks modern vendor scripts which are designed to work within the load guidlines set by LL.  Without the function the vendors will have to revert to the old method of blind sending and resends which means that a lot of items get lost which causes in turn many problems for the merchant and customer base in SL. 

It also means that network traffic will increase and degrade SL performance which hurts everyone.  In fact if the ability to check if someone is online to receive something is removed then capping becomes a severe problem which is normally solved by repeating the transmission at intervals during the day or even over the course of a week so that at least one copy gets thruough.  When that is nessessary the only way to deal with the throttling for messages and notices is to go outside the LL network and send items and messages from servers outside from different addresses so the throttling does not clamp the sender off before the message que is sent which (when hundreds or thousands of merchants are using a service to do that) can cause extreme network congestion.  And do not even bother trying to say that the merchants will not do that because some already do instead of using intelligent senders that look for someone to be online before sending them the message or notice or package, and inevitablly many more will do so if that is the only practical solution.

Is making everyone suffer more lag so a few users can have the false illusion that they can sneak around invisibly like a thief in the night worth it? Personally I would say no.

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Rolig Loon wrote:

@Anaiya -- I can appreciate your perspective.  I find the "busy" option awkward and annoying so I rarely use it myself, but I do value my quiet work time and will protect it against unwanted intrusion.  Aside from occasionally being annoyed, though, I see little need to disable a

very

useful function -- one that I rely on fairly heavily.

---

I hate this forum software.......

Just to clarify, I am completely against disabling this function in lsl.  It's been active much too long and a lot of content relies on it. LL implemented it, people relied on it being available to sell products they cannot trivially fix, replace or refund, and people spent on the basis that this was a supported feature that would not suddenly go poof.  I'd feel that way if there were work arounds, but for some legitimate  uses there just are not adequate work arounds.

I  would rather the water were not muddied by someone giving text book examples of good reasons to not keep it, in support of keeping it.  I absolutely agree this function needs to stay.  We need the function for a lot of good reasons, but facilitating e-drama is not one of those good reasons and frankly as a supporter of this function, I don't want anyone to think that "keeping tabs on e-partners for the purpose of e-drama facilitation" is even on the table as a good reason for keeping this important feature functioning.

[Anaiya Arnold]

---

Verena Vuckovic wrote:

"I should not be beholden to you or to explaining myself to you if I want to indulge in TOS abiding skulduggery. It's none of your business whatsoever."

It most certainly

is

my business if I bump into.....as I have done a number of times......a 'friend' who is showing as offline. And nobody can answer the one simple question.....why would anyone who isn't on friends list and who has never heard of you....

want

to know if you are online anyway ??

 

"As it happens, I often wish for minimal non-necessary interuptions while I am busy, while still being able to immediately respond in the instance a customer wishes to contact me. "

Lol ! You've just totally contradicted yourself there.....and shown the utter

absurdity

of your argument. A person who has never heard of you is not going to give a monkey's if you are online or not.....even if it is displayed. So the only people who are going to

want

to communicate will BE those customers

..............

the one's you so desperately want to be able to communicate with but from whom you hide that you are even online !!

 

"That's my business and if you see the fact that sometimes, I need to work without being tempted to socialize by open solicitation from friends to do so, while still wanting to be available to immediately provide non-social customer service as skuldugery, that still does not make it any business of your's."

 

Lol ! Let's say I am a customer of yours. I have a complaint. I don't want to be fobbed off......I want answers right now. I look up your avatar in search.....and it says you are

offline

. So I take that at

face value

and don't communicate.

You seriously call that being available for your customers ??? What a farce.

 

 

---

It's not my problem if you cannot pick friends that you can get along with without e-drama being involved. You don't need a good reason from anyone for anything.  No one owes you any kind of reason.  You're not the owner of SL and if people who you think of as "friends" don't want you  to know their current online status, they don't owe you a thing, including information about whether they are online.  If that's a problem for, employ discretion in choosing your friends.

E-drama is not an inherent right Verena.

Your analysis of my argument makes no sense at all.  Customers will tend to not check my online status before IMing me.    They send an IM and thus find out if I am online.  People on my friends list can see my status from their viewer unless I supress their ability to do so and tend to not IM unless it looks like I am online.  If I supress my online status from my friends in my viewer( which I tend to not bother with because I never think of it, but which I appreciate having the option of doing very ocassionally when working on something that is being difficult and I really need to not be overly distracted from), then customers will simply IM me as they tend to and thus find out that I am online, but people on my friends list tend to not IM me unless their friends list shows that I am online.  What people who have never heard of me has to do with that, I cannot begin to guess.

I hope most of SL's user base, and my customers are not e-drama mongers and hence would IM me at their first convenience if they need customer support, rather than assume they will get fobbed off despite having no reason to believe I am a fobber-offer. The last customer who IMed me, did so when I was offline and got a response in under 10 minutes.  I would hope most SL users have enough sense to understand that if they wait for me to coincidently be online at the same time as them, they may have to wait a really long time, and in fact, it might just not happen. 

[mikka Luik]

Rolig, nothing to do with ' fear of unnamed bad guys' or anything so simplistic. And if i want to hide in my turtle shell...well you know thats why i rent my own private sandbox, totally closed, so as whoever raised the point of 'bumping into people' who show as offline a) i don't care b) really unlikely anyway.

There are times I want to be working on something involved with total access to my inventory (so using an alt is not an option) when I really want no interaction with the rest of the world for extended periods. Thats why I've taken to using other grids for some dev stuff - because, face it, they are more or less empty after all =^^= But not exactly an ideal solution, they just don't have the capabilities.

So comes to 2 things - if i set my prefs to show offline I want all viewers to reflect that . All of them, no exceptions. And as for the LSL functionality - hey merchant guess what, its lovely you check if i'm there and if I want to be seen then hey doubly lovely. As I've used the online check myself in products I still don't see the problem with it being fixed.Like anything in this world of ours, it all falls under the 'subject to change' banner anyway.

 

 

 

[Rolig Loon]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

---

Rolig Loon wrote:

@Anaiya -- I can appreciate your perspective.  I find the "busy" option awkward and annoying so I rarely use it myself, but I do value my quiet work time and will protect it against unwanted intrusion.  Aside from occasionally being annoyed, though, I see little need to disable a

very

useful function -- one that I rely on fairly heavily.

---

I hate this forum software.......

Just to clarify, I am completely against disabling this function in lsl.  It's been active much too long and a lot of content relies on it. LL implemented it, people relied on it being available to sell products they cannot trivially fix, replace or refund, and people spent on the basis that this was a supported feature that would not suddenly go poof.  I'd feel that way if there were work arounds, but for some legitimate  uses there just are not adequate work arounds.

I  would rather the water were not muddied by someone giving text book examples of good reasons to not keep it, in support of keeping it.  I absolutely agree this function needs to stay.  We need the function for a lot of good reasons, but facilitating e-drama is not one of those good reasons and frankly as a supporter of this function, I don't want anyone to think that "keeping tabs on e-partners for the purpose of e-drama facilitation" is even on the table as a good reason for keeping this important feature functioning.

---

I don't mind you disagreeing with me --  I think that's what you are doing, but I can't really be sure -- but if you are going to quote me, please use my own words.  That paragraph you quoted that starts "Just to clarify ..." was not mine.  I never said that.  Nor did I quote any textbook examples of anything, and I have never in my life supported e-drama.  That's not my style.  I think you have me confused with someone else.

[Roberta Messerchmitt]

If it was simply a matter of 'fixing' the function so it would read online status by the way it was set rather than by a persons true status then it would not be quite so bad, but official word is (do to the way SL is programmed) that is not an option; it is either leave it as is or break it entirely and completely. 

Leaving it be is far less disruptive than getting rid of it, there is a huge number of scripts that depend on it and there is no viable alternative to the function that does not require brute force methods with bots or outside servers to automate.  SL is getting laggier all the time without schemes to use saturation methods for deliveries and such; make them the only way for merchants to compete and SL will turn into a tarpit of lag.

When i am working a design or sculpt or anything else that requires concentration i usually just shut off my chat window and ignore the ping of incoming messages (if i even notice them thru the concentration) until i get to a point where i can take a break and glance at the message and notice counters and see who is talking to me.  My friends understand that that is just how i work and there is no snub intended (and in fact some of them work the same way).  I suppose there is someone out there that has an irresistible compulsion to drop everything and absolutely must answer every IM and chat immediately that will not allow them to work on anything if anyone knows he or she is on, but the rest of the people should not suffer because of a very few extremely vocal people with 'evil hand' type issues.

[Verena Vuckovic]

"Your analysis of my argument makes no sense at all. Customers will tend to not check my online status before IMing me. They send an IM and thus find out if I am online. "

 

Duh.....it IS a ridiculous argument ! By definition you don't know about the ones who didn't send an IM.........and who used the damned online status that you are arguing for to see your status and NOT communicate because they saw you as 'not online'.

DUH !!!

How utterly, utterly, utterly absurd for someone to argue for how brilliant a business tool something is by arguing none of their customers use it !  We've obviously left Kansas waaaaay behind at this point.

 

 

[Verena Vuckovic]

"Leaving it be is far less disruptive than getting rid of it"

It is not going to make a blind bit of difference for determined stalkers even if Linden Lab do totally 'fix' it.

By definition a stalker is someone who already knows who you are in SL. They are highly likely to already know all one's favourite hangouts......and even if all one's groups are hidden it would not require that much effort to work out what they might be and join them.

So this 'fix' will have no effect whatever for determined stalkers. And worse still......it means that the stalkee will be unable to use the code loophole to see when the stalker is online. After all.....this code 'fix' works both ways.

 

 

 

[Verena Vuckovic]

"There are times I want to be working on something involved with total access to my inventory (so using an alt is not an option) when I really want no interaction with the rest of the world for extended periods. "

 

I keep hearing this argument..........from people not one of whom can tell me how the mere fact of someone knowing they are online affects that 'no interaction' in the slightest.

Setting status offline doesn't stop people IMing......indeed, the absurdity is that the poster in the previous post I responded to argues that everyone sends IMs. So we have two people arguing mutually exclusive arguments for status blocking.

So how does status blocking facilitate this 'no interaction' ? I doesn't make any difference whatever to IMs, notecards, etc etc. This whole 'no interaction' argument is bogus.....and many of the traders here even prove so by their comments.

 

[Kyrah Abattoir]

Knowing your online status doesn't enable stalking, it merely reenforce it and making the system lie about it won't stop a determined stalker.

However it's going to break a lot of systems and make your SecondLife potentially unpleasant. Delivery systems rely on this information to know if it's safe to send items to you. Game systems use it to check if you potentially left the game. As LL implement those new game related features i could see a lot more systems doing online checks.

There could be a ton of reasons to do an online check as a condition for accepting direct or indirect interaction from an avatar, down to a simple door.

Hell some scripters might go on a vendetta against "ghost" avatars and simply deny them any script interactivity...

You can already block said stalkers from IMing you and derender their avatar which equals making them vanish from existence, they have no way to request your exact position anywhere on the grid, so knowing whether you are online or not doesn't change anything,you can ban them from your land and make the avatars outside of it unable to see inside.

Making the system lie on demand however render the programs depending from it unreliable at best.

[Nickel Briand]

"However it's going to break a lot of systems and make your SecondLife potentially unpleasant. Delivery systems rely on this information to know if it's safe to send items to you. Game systems use it to check if you potentially left the game. As LL implement those new game related features i could see a lot more systems doing online checks."

 

It w wrong ; firstly because it can be easily replaced by other ways more secure .

Secondly because if these scripts use  llrequestagentdata, then they are badly coded.

A delivery system works  even when the user is offline ; basic instance :

default{    state_entry()    {       llSetTimerEvent(10.0);           }    timer()     {        llRequestAgentData(llGetOwner(), DATA_ONLINE);     }    dataserver(key queryid, string data)    { // gives the script only when the owner is offline        if (data == "0")        {                llGiveInventory(llGetOwner(), llGetScriptName());                llSetTimerEvent(0.0);        }    }    }

( tested in http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Magnum%20Sandbox%203/29/126/34 ) 

So the object arrives to the user ( after he has rezzed of course )

Even if we are guessing they need it , merchants don t need to be able to give inventory to  30 000 000 accounts  because their group is maybe 10 000 or 20 000 members .  A status online limited to one group is more than enough

A game to know if the player has left,  shouldn t check llrequestagentdata, but should check llGetAgentSize or llGetObjetDetails on the avatar to know it .  Because these last functions  return a value when the player is online AND is in the same sim of the game . And a bug majoriy of games can t work when the player is outside the sim

 http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/LlGetAgentSize

They are very few use cases who are grid wide . And even for use cases who are grid wide , you shouldn t use llrequestagentdata but you should check some http/urls of prims ( for instance huds , or bdsm  collars )

And even the bords with online status don t need to be able to check 30 000 000 users but only the owner 

Never i have used llRequestAgenData(data_online) in my scripts except to check the status of the owner only .

Scripters who do it are bad scripters

To add , llrequestagentdata(online) is laggy for the whole grid , because the dataservices are centralized ; to find some alternatives solutions at the level of the sim is maybe laggy for the sim but doesn t impact the other sims 

 

[Rolig Loon]

---

Nickel Briand wrote:

[...] A game to know if the player has left,  shouldn t check llrequestagentdata, but should check llGetAgentSize or llGetObjetDetails on the avatar to know it .  Because these last functions  return a value when the player is online AND is in the same sim of the game . And a bug majoriy of games can t work when the player is outside the sim

 

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/LlGetAgentSize

They are very few use cases who are grid wide . And even for use cases who are grid wide , you shouldn t use llrequestagentdata but you should check some http/urls of prims ( for instance huds , or bdsm  collars ) [....]

---

The example I posted is exactly the sort of sim-wide application that will fail if I use your solution.  Because llGetAgentSize and llGetObjectDetails will not work when the avatar is outside the sim, those functions cannot substitute for getting DATA_ONLINE.  It would be significantly more awkward (and less reliable) to use http and check for a failed response.  There's no point in replacing an easy-to-use function with an unnecessarily complicated workaround.  That's simply "bad scripting", to use your term.

[Nickel Briand]

Bad scriptings is to abuse some ressources who are limited as the dataservices when you can replace them with other solutions as http  . Http is scalable , llrequestagentdata is not

 

You forget too that llrequestagentdata has met some issues when the online indicator could be refreshed only after 10 minutes !!!! ( check the wiki  or https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-6831? )

And you are daring to joke about http failures ???

Even in the best cases , the online status is not refreshed from the sim to the dataservices immediately ; what your scripts do when the dataservices tell that the user is online , but the sim tell he is offline ? It s a lot of bugs .

Http doesn t need this refreshing  , so they work hugely better

 

For your instance of volunnter , you check if the voulunters are online , but your forget to check if they are available , if they have free time to spend for help . Normally , it s up to the volunteers to give an information to your device "yes, now , i can help"  . Not in the other way . That s why Http will owns always llrequestagentdata

 

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Nickel Briand wrote:

A delivery system works  even when the user is offline ;

The reason delivery systems often need to check if the recipient is online is that llGiveInventory isn't reliable when the recipient is offline, since, if the recipient's IMs are capped, llGiveInventory fails and the item you're trying to deliver is completely lost.   

If I buy a gift for a friend who isn't online, the vendor has no way of knowing if my friend's IMs are capped, so it's safest to for it not to attempt a delivery until my friend is online, since that way the item is less likely to be lost.

[Nickel Briand]

Look this answer of melani in openimulator

http://opensimulator.org/mantis/view.php?id=4528

"
The recipient doesn't receive a message, but does indeed receive the item. In that way, it's consistent with SL when IMs are capped, because capping can also cause the dialogs to be lost in SL, but delivery as such still works.

"

So your problem doen t exist because of the online indicator

Anyway , this method with status online doesn t work , because for the dataservives , the users can be online , but in reality they are offline . 

And the delay is generally of several minutes .

Put an offline detection who records the hour of logoff in a first sim ; put the same scipt in an aonther sim ; log off from here ; log in ; displays the records ; the records will be different 

Even in the  best comportment , the sim caches 60 seconds the status ( by configuration of the sim , cf Maestro )

So , your method fails anyway