Block instant messages sent by banned users to visitors
closed
KarlRichard Resident
A resident who has been banned from a parcel/region should not be able to message other residents on that very parcel/region. (Exceptions could be, that they are on their friend list or have been contacted before yet.)
Reason: This could help to prevent more drama and protect businesses. A griefer who is banned from our shipyard is frequently camping next to it and messaging our customers defaming us trying to deter them from buying our ships. I'm sure we are not the only ones who have this problem.
Edit: Additionally I would suggest that a banned resident should not be able to see other residents on the land he is banned from, neither inworld nor on the minimap. (Thank you @Bavid Dailey for this idea!) I think, this would make the "work" of any griefer harder, too.
Log In
Spidey Linden
marked this post as
closed
Hello, and thank you for your feature request.
Incoming suggestions are reviewed in the order they are received by a team of Lindens with diverse areas of expertise. We consider a number of factors: Is this change possible? Will it increase lag? Will it break existing content? Is it likely that the number of residents using this feature will justify the time to develop it? This wiki page further describes the reasoning we use: Feature Requests
This particular suggestion, unfortunately, cannot be tackled at this time. However, we regularly review previously deferred suggestions when circumstances change or resources become available.
We are grateful for the time you took to submit this feature request. We hope that you are not discouraged from submitting others in the future. Many excellent ideas to improve Second Life come from you, our residents. We can’t do it alone.
Thank you for your continued commitment to Second Life.
KarlRichard Resident
Spidey Linden Ok, but I'd still like to answer your questions to minimize misunderstandings (if any):
- Is this change possible? - Most probably yes and probably with little effort only (see sample code of next comment)
- Will it increase lag? - No simulator lag is to be expected, maybe chat lag while an IM session is started, but so tiny that it won't affect the user experience.
- Will it break existing content? - No, this feature does not affect any user created content at all.
- Is it likely that the number of residents using this feature will justify the time to develop it? - In my opinion the feature will lessen abuse for only little cost of develop time (see next comment). Since it is considered to be an extension of the existing ban feature, users automatically will use it when they ban someone. (So no checkbox/config/confusion in viewer required.)
- It can't be tackled at this time. - If you are lacking programmers, I offer myself to implement this feature for free, if you grant me access to the code and documentation, provided I can do it within 20 hours of work (studying the clean code and docs included). If I am not able to accomplish the task within 20 hours of work I have the right to give up. So no financial risk for LL. This offer is valid until April 30th, 2026.
KarlRichard Resident
Spidey Linden My idea about implementing this feature:
Since I don't know the code yet, I suppose each session is controlled by an instance of a class "IMSession". Then the change would look like this (this is a simplified quick draft):
class IMSession {
private:
// private constructor:
IMSession(
Agent agent1,
Agent agent2 ){
// ... (unchanged logics)
}
// ... (unchanged logics)
public:
// session starter:
static IMSession
createBetween(
Agent agent1, *Agent agent2 ){
// already existing code (block list check):
if ( agent2->hasBlocked( agent1 ) ) {
return NULL;
}
// new feature code:
if (
agent1->isBannedFrom( agent2->getLocation() )
&& !agent1->hasFriend( agent2 )
) {
return NULL;
}
// ... (already existing other checks if any)
// when all checks have been passed succesfully
// the session is created and its pointer is returned:
return new IMSession( agent1, agent2 );
}
// ... (unchanged logics)
};
Of course, the assumed classes and methods might not exist literally, but logically they have to in some kind, since friend lists and bans work reliably. So most of what wee need already exists! (And of course, the second argument of IMSession::createBetween actually has to be an Array **Agent we have to iterate through, since you can start sessions with multiple agents, but for a quicker general understanding I kept it this simple.)
In case the necessary info is not available in IMSession::createBetween the new if block instead would call something like IMPermissionService::allowSessionStartBetween and in the new class IMPermissionService we would bundle everything we need to accomplish the check. Something similar most probably already exists for the block list check.
For less eye cancer download the sample code and enjoy the tabs:
DevinKnights84 Resident
KarlRichard Resident " if you grant me access to the code and documentation" HAHAHAHAH!! Delusional
DevinKnights84 Resident
I am writing to address the personal claims made in this request. While this portal is intended for technical feedback, it has been used here to highlight a personal dispute, which is a misuse of this platform under the Linden Lab Community Participation Guidelines.
Clarification of Events: The claims that I disrupted business or attacked "demo" ships are inaccurate. My actions were confined to legitimate PvP gameplay as established by the creators' own system. I was engaged in a conflict with a specific player who was consistently abusing build tools to grief me... a situation I reported to the creators for weeks without resolution.
Response to "Abuse": I have already acknowledged and apologized to several individuals for any past rude behavior that occurred in the heat of these disputes. It is disappointing to see these events now being presented out of context to justify a feature specifically designed to target one resident.
System Misuse: I have documented evidence of my ships and cannons being remotely disabled without warning or policy violation, despite being a paying customer. Using a feature request to further this targeted exclusion is an extension of the harassment I have faced in-world.
Call to Moderation: I request that Linden Lab moderators and or SL Feedback review this thread. This request is not a general feature suggestion but a targeted attack against my account
Rowan Amore
Not worth it
Beatrice Voxel
Wow, so much drama here. Y'all need to get a room. >.>
File an AR if someone's being disruptive. Advise your customers/visitors to file an AR if someone's being disruptive to them.
That's it. That's the whole issue.
IM's are not parcel or region specific, they're user-to-user. To assert some kind of parcel supercedance is asking for the entire IM system to be overhauled, for what appears to be a one-off case.
KarlRichard Resident
Beatrice Voxel Inworld this drama is going on since half a year now. ARs where disregarded so far. I understand that LL can't read most of them, but I guess they are evaluated statistically against a user's sales. So we'll continue to send them and encourage our community to do so as well.
In the system the info of agents locations, bans and IMs are available somewhere. An extra microservice might be necessary to connect the required info for the IM-service. The requested feature is useful anyway, not only for our specific case. It would help immediately and not take ages like ARs do.
Beatrice Voxel
KarlRichard Resident The biggest concern here isn't "Can it be done?" but "Should it be done?" You're asking for a large overhaul of the chat system, specifically to deal with one person. I doubt the Lindens are going to go for that.
KarlRichard Resident
Beatrice Voxel As a professional programmer I am pretty sure it is not a "large overhaul", but just requires a litte extra check before an IM session is created. (Probably roundabout where the block list check is, see my answers to Spidey Linden.)
Niky Niki
Part 3:
Finally, and as a consequence of aforementioned offensive behavior, we made our decision based on the following:
From Linden Lab Terms of Service:
6.2 You agree that you will not post or transmit Content or code that may be harmful, impede other users' functionality, invade other users' privacy, or surreptitiously or negatively impact any system or network.
You agree to respect both the integrity of the Service and the privacy of other users. You will not:
(iii) Engage in malicious or disruptive conduct that impedes or interferes with other users' normal use of or enjoyment of the Service;
[Source: https://lindenlab.com/tos#section6]
We find DevinKnights84 Resident in repeated violation of above mentioned ToS section. And hence:
From Second Life Terms and Conditions:
1.4. You shall be responsible for restricting access to Content for which you do not wish to grant a User Content License.
... If you do not wish to grant users of Second Life a User Content License, you agree that it is your obligation to avoid displaying or making available your Content to other users. ...
by which we decided to restrict DevinKnights84 Resident's access to our content in order to stop them from continuing to violate LL ToS 6.2 iii, since all previous attempts did not succeed in stopping DevinKnights84 Resident 's disruptive behavior.
Niky Niki
Part 2:
The actions described in Part 1 - hypocritically called PvP gaming by DevinKnights84 Resident - are intended for one and only one purpose: to disrupt the business of N+K.
Let us now remind ourselves that when this happened, no ships of DevinKnights84 Resident had been "blocked" or in any way rendered useless. This most drastic measure of last resort was only implemented after DevinKnights84 Resident had started actively disrupting business.
And yes, the measure is both drastic and highly unusual. We even, after a short while, revoked the update block, freeing DevinKnights84 Resident's ships for regular use by them, and of course hoping that this dire warning would lead to some notion of sensible behavior. Sadly it did not. DevinKnights84 Resident immediately started using his ships to again attack demo-ships, harass community members and disrupt business. Many Abuse Reports were filed. Many complaints came in. But DevinKnights84 Resident just continued with insults, threats and active disruption.
It is this "pre-story" that DevinKnights84 Resident ironically never mentions. Worse even, they not only omit this but moreover attempt to justify their abusive behavior as regular PvP gaming. It is clearly not that. To the contrary, this is one toxic personality, hurt because what they perceived as "status" was taken from them after multiple complaints by many and diverse community members. The colloquial expression for this is "butthurt".
Niky Niki
Part 1:
It is hard to comment and write about all this without falling into the trap of the same foolish back-and-forth arguments, which leads to nothing.
For completeness though, let us recap the origins: the entirety of this issue is rooted in the fact, that DevinKnights84 Resident was removed from their mentor position in the Tallship Sailors group after multiple complaints from other group members. This decision was and is of course entirely at our (N+K's) discretion.
Sadly, it did not lead to a more enjoyable experience for N+K customers and creators. Instead DevinKnights84 Resident started showing increasingly malicious behavior towards community members as well as creators. Undoubtedly, a certain level of frustration and anger is understandable, when putting yourself in DevinKnights84 Resident's shoes, but abusing PvP gameplay to a) make existing customers uncomfortable and b) discourage potential future customers from acquiring N+K products and engaging with the community is not acceptable.
This did not go down without communication, though. Much to the contrary, I - as one of the creators of N+K - engaged continuously in conversations with DevinKnights84 Resident. In those, I made it very clear that no matter the troubles they would have in the community, any action to disrupt business could and would not go without consequences.
Despite these clear cut red lines that we asked to respect, DevinKnights84 Resident's behavior just became more offensive. Personal insults is not the issue here, but the already discussed and widely reported camping in front of the harbor and purposefully attacking demo-ships is. Now, to make this clear, the pretense that this would in any way constitute PvP gaming is an affront to common sense. Clearly, people trying out demo ships are most commonly not experienced sailors ready and/or willing to immediately engage in a combat situation as soon as they set sail - much to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that such customers wish to try out a ship, get familiar with basic handling and controls and assess whether to buy the product in question - unbothered by unsolicited attacks from others.
KarlRichard Resident
SL Feedback As the "K" and co-owner of the N+K brand I confirm all what my business partner Niky Niki wrote here (all three parts).
DevinKnights84 Resident
SL Feedback Oh also, KarlRichard Resident also admits this feature request was specifically targetting me.
DevinKnights84 Resident
SL Feedback KarlRichard Resident if I actually was a griefer, n+k would have to worry about alot more than just me sitting outside their store with a sign saying that they disabled the products that I purchased from them and they know that. They are afraid I will actually get people to believe the truth about them.
DevinKnights84 Resident
SL Feedback These people have broken SL TOS and multiple communities TOS ( GTFO! for example, where they lost their rights to post notices because they broke SL TOS in a notice sent in the GTFO community. ) after they have banned me and illegally disabled the products that I purchased from them to attempt to destroy everything I have earned across second life. KarlRichard Resident has even admitted in this feed to have used an alt to abuse me. Please do something about these criminals. The evidence exists to prove what I'm saying is true.
DevinKnights84 Resident
SL Feedback you see how these people are? I think you might want to do something about this abuse. Where is trust and safety? I've been reporting these people to trust and safety for months and they are still allowed to continue their abuse against me. Why are people allowed to trash peoples entire second life across all platforms connected to second life for personal vendettas against one person? Please get trust and safety to do their job and investigate the evidence I have provided. If they do investigate they will see who the problem is here.
Load More
→