Inviting an avatar to a group (multiple replies)

Ima Mechanique ima.mechanique at blueyonder.co.uk
Fri Jul 27 13:23:06 PDT 2007


> From: Ima Mechanique <ima.mechanique at blueyonder.co.uk>
> >> That way you would only be getting invites from objects you interact
> >> with.
> 
> > Like walking through a sim and interacting with a sensor event?
> 
> That's about the worst case that would remain, and that's a pretty  
> small opening for abuse. You could further limit it without limiting  
> legitimate uses by restricting it to groups that have no fee, or to  
> objects in the land group or owned by the landowner at the avatar's  
> location.

I disagree it's a small opening for abuse. I think it's the largest
opening for abuse and why I object to the idea.

> You could even restrict it to touch events only, the way that sending  
> a map location is, but I'd rather not see so much of that kind of  
> thing*, since it's reasonable to want to do it after payment events  
> where sensor is the logical next step.

  My response was in reply to the llDetect* functions which can't
reasonably be limited that way.  Creating a separate function that only
works in touch or payment events would appear to be workable, but still
open to abuse (mostly for the touch).

> Ima Mechanique responds:

> > I don't see how mall renters is any different to land renters which  
> > has
> > been mentioned.
> 
> It's not. BOTH are totally reasonable thing to automate using LSL.

I don't agree that either is reasonable for automating invitations, that
is the job of a person.

> > If you don't like that, leave membership open, or create a bot to be
> > your representative and have your customers ask that to do the  
> > inviting.
> 
> And, of course, legitimizing group management bots (which are  
> completely uncontrollable) instead of adding LSL functions that can  
> be limited to prevent gross abuse has proven SUCH a successful tactic  
> in the case of land sales. There's no reason to assume that spammers  
> would run bots, is there, even though they are more likely to have  
> the resources to do so than legitimate users.

It wouldn't legitimise group bots in any way. But it does increase the
level of expertise required to spam.

As an alternative I'd like to suggest this for consideration

Extend the functionality of groups, so that individuals can ask to join
closed groups. Then supply the scripting functions to automate the
accepting of such requests.  This make the whole situation an OPT IN
instead of the annoyance of OPT OUT, thereby making the question of spam
moot.


Ima Mechanique
Check List
1) Check the documentation.
2) Drink coffee.
3) Check the documentation again, to see what I missed first time.
4) If I still can't solve it, ask if anyone else has the answer.




More information about the secondlifescripters mailing list