« Danger, Danger Linden! | Main | Rental Dementia »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Micha Sass

It would seem that group settings override the land settings. Maybe not a bug as such. You could remove 'rez objects' from the default group abilities and then set this privilege in the land settings. If, as you say, this is only a problem for you and not the majority, LL may not fix this.

Micha Sass

Turning off 'rezzing-for-group' on only some of your group land will expose at least some of your estate to griefing (assuming 0-days can join the open group). If you are getting griefed I would have thought you would want to protect your entire estate, in which case the finer grained setting you wish for are not required any way.


Check the "Parcel Powers" section of your group member's roles. There is an option that grants build ability. Is that checked?

Also the group does not have to be active. Membership is enough. This used to be different.

Daniel Regenbogen

It is not a bug, it "only" is a missing option for group roles abilities.

I take it your land is deeded to/owned by the group? In that case, *all* group members are seen as land owners in the settings for everyone/group/owner. It is different if the land is only *set* to the group, but not owned by the group. In that case, unchecking the checkboxes for everyone and group takes away the rezzing powers from group members, too - and only the owner of the land can rezz.

So, no bug and nothing broken. Though your idea of putting this into the abilities for group roles is a good one.


i dont think one needs a virtual simulation to see from realities histories that totalitarian dictatorships dont get "reformed" but only overthrown.

we need to keep governments/cult leaders/meglomaniacs as far away from computer memes/money and pundits as possible.

all cyber/mech delusions of betterverses will always be the story of the scorpion and the frog.

the only way to prevent it is to remove humans from the game. which is what SL was founded on.

maybe today, rod will just turn them into a "stupid fun club"... which is fine with me... everyone can use some stupid fun.


Rez in Second Life means to create or to make an object appear. Rezzing an object/prim can be done by dragging it from a resident's inventory or by creating a ...

Gosh Human Rights?

C.rap M.ariner commenting: http://firstlife.isfullofcrap.com/2012/09/21/tell-the-tale/

Prokofy Neva

The answers here are typical of the perverse snarky take on code that you would see on the JIRA.

Common sense would dictate that if a box says EVERYONE and GROUP for the build on land, and you uncheck them, then....you should have NO BUILD on that land.

The idea that "group rules trump land rules" is wack. There's no reason for that; if anything, the owner of the land -- the group -- should have the land do what he wants it to do when he checks those boxes.

This is the sort of thing Soft Linden would look at and also perversely say, "Oh, that's a feature request, not a bug." And Alex Linden would say "Oh, that just needs a better explanation. Let's just change the descriptions on the boxes because it *is* confusing."

But that's all bullshit. It's a design flaw. Build and no build are pretty basic. Hey, how come "safe" and "damages" when checked and unchecked work for the Lindens' beloved war games, but this function doesn't the way it is supposed to? It's not right

The expectation one has that it will turn off is right; the idea that group "gets to" override in fact isn't a norm in SL -- the funny thing is in that other annoying bug I discovered where people who didn't have the right to return group-set prims in the group *could* return them if they were on "share," why, the object perms were trumping group rules -- group rules weren't ruling then! So which is it, guys?

If "build/no build" only works for a sole owner who has *set* a land to a group rather than *deeding* it to a group then...why is the menu even there after you deed a land? Why *doesn't* it work?

There is no objective reason why it couldn't. It's just that no Lindens wanted to bother. It wasn't important for them to figure out group tools and land settings that help actual groups and communities or rentals because they just wanted to drive people to more expensive islands in the end, and stop trying to figure out how to make groups better. They went through an enthusiastic period reforming the group tools -- and back then, I fought another killer that really harmed rentals -- the ability to vote an officer off land he paid for on the auction and paid tier on, through "officers' recall". Remember that horror?

It was done to me by someone pursuing a vendetta once, and Blue Linden told me that I should just run in the elections and try to win fair and square (!) even though what I was running was not a hippie commune, which is what the tools originally were designed for, but a rentals system. It was an insane system.

Even after they reformed the group tools, they still had problems (group chat, anyone?) It's never been a priority for Lindens. And it's not BTW for Open Sim or any other sim I see, none of which have coded groups better and their functions.

Remember my famous blog post about "the pizza guy" stealing all of Linden Lab in real life? Cory Linden had actually liked that and the Lindens discussed it. Because it was really insane the way people could take your land away from you merely because you had once trusted them as officers...

The Lindens *accidently* made money on server sales because the real estate model developed which wasn't their plan. They didn't engineer for it. They engineered for content creators, sandboxing, people wrecking stuff.

It is a bug. It is not a "missing option." I'm not surprise, again, that the same perverse types like Daniel who always adopt the sort of lefty political view and also play the child avatar edgecasing game as well also can't see this issue normally.

Amelise is right that it used to be that you had to make the group active -- but that was changed.

Now, sure, you can check off roles not to have any rezzing powers. What do they get out of membership in? It might make sense for a mall or something, but for rentals, I think it's optimal to have people not queue up for invitations but be able to start building, or to test their houses or invite their friends to see if they like it with the "try before you buy" sort of house rezzing that people can do with a rental like this.

And the convenience outweighs the griefers.

Micha, you're talking about private island estates. This is the mainland.

Daniel Regenbogen

Lol, Prok, you really have some understanding deficits. I simply pointed out why it doesn't work the way you expected it to work. This setting is to restrict rezzing powers in steps from everyone, only members of a group or the owner. In case of group owned land, the group *is* the owner, so you can't restrict group members (aka owners) from rezzing.

"if anything, the owner of the land -- the group -- should have the land do what he wants it to do when he checks those boxes." But that's exactly how it is. The owner can not take away his own rezzing rights. If turning of group rezzing rights in group owned land was possible, you yourself couldn't rezz anymore (and shouldn't be able anymore to reverse that setting) - how should the system know that the member of the land owning group Prok is allowed to rezz, and the member of the land owning group xyz not? The dog bites its own tail.

Might be a bit confusing (especially when you do only half research, even when being in the land business for such a long time), but that's the way it is, and it is not a bug. Maybe there could be a way to gray out that box in case of group owned land - how about proposing that to LL? Might be a nice idea (and the only logical way) to have such restrictions available in group role abilities (you can NOT deny rezzing rights in group roles abilities yet) - how about proposing that to LL? But no, you, instead of giving productive input, jump into the faces of people, claiming "A bug, a bug!", while there isn't one - and then wonder that people not exactly bending backwards to accomodate your wishes. Nah, you prefer an insane bite reflex whenever you see some people/names. Pavlov's dogs anyone?

Prokofy Neva

It's not about "my expectations," Daniel, but your perverseness.

A box on a menu in Second Life that says "everyone" and "group" and "build" should work to turn off building for "everyone" or "group" or both -- full stop.

Everything else on the menu works that way.

It's either "damage" or "safe".

It's either "$30/wk search places add" or not.

It's either "public access" or "not public".

In fact, the griefers override two other things I'll do a separate post about:

a) they can rez objects regardless of being on the ban list
b) they can rez objects even on land closed to admit-only.

Neither of those can be said to be merely what "I expect" but are flaws, along with the initial flaws that don't perform the simple intuitive and common-sense function.

But simple, intuitive and common-sense -- those aren't features of open source software.

The owner can in fact take away his own rezzing rights when he's sole owner. So why can't he when he's group?

And truly, why can't he? Some land should be designated no build for any reason or no reason, and the box is there to do it. It doesn't work. It's a flaw.

If you put no group, that simply no build -- period. In fact it used to work that way.

I don't need LL to "grey out the box" consistent with the Alexa Linden way of sweeping bugs under the rug, which is to pretend that bugs are just poorly-explained features.

I need them to make it work the way it is supposed to and as it is advertised.

Checking a land to disable building shouldn't be something complicated. You can already do it in some instances -- why not completely?

And the whole reason why this matters in the first place, because the OTHER feature -- BAN -- IS NOT WORKING. They are OVERRIDING BAN. Later iterations of SL software made it possible so that if a person was banned, they couldn't rez objects or interact even with objects on that land.

Timeless Prototype thought this was great because he could ban me from his land, then I couldn't reach in and buy something from his vendor anyway, from a neighbouring parcel.

So I could ban "EugeneObama Resident" who is rezzing all this crap on my land, but he can keep rezzing it. Meanwhile, he overrides the system again to ban me from my own land, making it so I can't return an object with a right click but have to try to access the land menu.

It's already the case that you can deprive *roles* in the group rezzing rights, but that's not an open group. You aren't sufficiently versed in the menu. So you're wrong about that. Indeed you can. It's under the"Allowed Abilities" and "Parcel "Powers" and "Always Allow Create Objects".

It is a bug.

I don't expect these hippies and perverse engineers in the open source cult to accommodate me. I simply report on how they keep enabling griefers with their bugs.

Eventually, governance will become as important to them as shiny new alternative toys like pathfinding. They'd rather make it possible for an NPC in a zombie game to move through obstacles than to place any reasonable obvious common-sense obstacle to griefing that always helps maintain open communities. Their game.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Blog powered by Typepad