Prevent Banned Avatars from Using llDamage on Restricted Parcels
tracked
Soap Frenzy
Avatars should not be able to use llDamage against agents or objects on parcels where they are banned or otherwise do not have access. This should also extend to objects that have been deeded to a group by said avatar.
Currently, if a parcel has damage enabled, a banned avatar can still use llDamage to affect targets within that parcel. This effectively allows them to bypass parcel bans and continue interacting with residents or objects despite being explicitly denied access by the land owner.
This behavior undermines the purpose of parcel access controls. If a land owner bans an avatar, that decision should prevent all forms of hostile or disruptive interaction originating from that avatar, including scripted damage.
Parcel owners rely on access controls such as bans and group restrictions to manage their land and protect the experience of people within it. Allowing banned avatars to continue affecting the parcel through llDamage removes control from the land owner and weakens their ability to enforce boundaries.
By permitting damage interactions across parcel bans, the platform effectively overrides the land owner’s explicit decision about who is allowed to interact with their space. Preventing llDamage from working across parcel bans would restore the intended autonomy of land owners to control interactions within the environments they manage.
A secondary request would be adding a flag to the region settings that can be set TRUE or FALSE to allow damage to be dealt from sources to targets on different parcels as a region wide setting and default it to FALSE
Log In
chesse Vyceratops
I have damage turned on in my house as an easy way to eject newbie griefers it would be very annoying if that was turned agianst me by expert griefers using LLdamage to spawn camp me even while banned from the parcel
Toothless Draegonne
chesse Vyceratops
Note that unless region debug settings have been set to disallow damage modification, you can use https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/LlAdjustDamage to create an infinitely strong shield for yourself.
Relying on llDamage as a moderation tool is quite the silly idea. That's not what it's meant for. Use llEjectFromLand for that. If you use the incorrect function for the purpose, you should not be surprised if you have problems down the road.
Huns Valen
What are some reasonable use cases for llDamage working across parcel lines, where the parcels aren't owned by the same groups?
It already seems like a silly function to me, since objects now have llSetRegionPos.
If you have an object like that, why do you need to use llDamage in the first place, except to get around "no object entry" rules, which you should not be allowed to do, even by proxy?
The thing that bothers me about this (alluded to elsewhere in this thread) is that there could be some presumption that the banning party is "right" and the banned party is "wrong". If llDamage is limited incoming, it should also be limited outgoing, otherwise it will become just as much a recreational griefing tool as zero-delay llTeleportAgentHome and similar API calls.
Toy Mouse
Huns Valen llDamage exists to reduce script lag mostly, while you can rez a prim and then tell that prim to go to a position to deliver damage physically its a lot more resource intensive on the sim (and server) to rez, transmit data somehow, move, then calculate physics for impact than just a single function call. Its actually been a massive boost to performance in combat regions having that function.
Changing it to not work if the damager is banned assumes any banning party is "right" and not just being done to grief via land tools (like plopping a no-entry parcel at the foot of an airport runway or such) which was the concern I raised too, though I think that should extend to anyone on a parcel so you don't have a land owner's friends grief someone because the land owner banned them.
Spidey Linden
marked this post as
tracked
Issue tracked. We have no estimate when it may be implemented. Please see future updates here.
Toy Mouse
The biggest issue I can forsee is if the banned avatar can still be damaged by people in land they can no longer access so it would allow a ton of abuse by land owners especially on shared land. I agree with disabling the ability for a banned avatar to damage people in a parcel HOWEVER I also want to stress the importance of ANY people in the parcel being unable to damage avatars on its banned list otherwise you will end up with a pay2grief system that will deter people from using the combat system in anywhere that isn't a fully private region.
Pet Mouse
Toy Mouse This to be honest.
Seth Ravenhurst
Man, people just figuring this out now.
Trouser Monster
Definitely seems to be an oversight on how llDamage was implemented, but this absolutely would need to go both ways and disable damage from going outbound against banned avatars as well.
Toothless Draegonne
Might be a problem with deeded objects, considering that they are then owned by the group and not the banned individual. You have to find the deeded object and remove it. In principle I definitely agree that banned should mean banned, though.
Talvin Muircastle
I would have to look, but I seem to recall other issues relating to things Banned or Blocked Residents can do that violate the spirit of the thing. I have upvoted this, but I think there needs to be a broader effort to get that more in line with expectations. Which User Group would be the one for that?
Void Mysterious
According to the wiki for llDamage to work it says:
"The prim containing the script and the prim receiving the damage must both be in damage enable parcels."
so... for what you describe if i understand correctly this person should be in another parcel in the same region and such parcel should also have to be damage enabled.
To me this look like something that should be address at whatever weapon system you are using.
Pet Mouse
This should indeed be considered strongly.
Load More
→