Snoots Dwagon wrote:
What if someone owned a private island but also wanted privacy. Yes, they could turn off island outside access... but that means people would think something is wrong with the island if it normally allows visitors.
However, with a simple group-visibility option, if one is not in the "privacy group"... they could still visit the private island, but the island residents (group members) would not be visible to them (non-group members).
Well, that applies to the parcel privacy as well. Group-based privacy doesn't provide advantages over parcel-based privacy, at least in respect to the feature you are describing.
Further, the visitor would not be visible to island members, preventing two things:
1) "Intrusion" factors when people want total privacy
I would argue that you have identified the largest problem with group-based privacy. The first is that if it is associated with a group rather than a parcel, there is little control over privacy. Anyone in the group would be able to see into the parcel, and chances are there are others in the group because
it is a land group. For example, region with many rental parcels in an "ABC Rentals Tenants" group would have no privacy whatsoever from their neighbors. However, parcel-based privacy would allow privacy to be defined, even within a group, by the subdivision of the land.
Many group roles come from a land parcel being assigned to a group. When we mention group-based privacy here, we're really talking about the group assigned to a parcel of land. If you privacy from others is defined by non-members of the group, then using group-based privacy reduces the resolution of privacy zones without adding any new control in its place. If you have 3 parcels with the same group, group privacy means there is no privacy from other group members at all over those three parcels, whereas parcel-based privacy would mean that each parcel (with the option enabled) would have a separate privacy partition.
2) The island members themselves "perving" visitors and unknowingly following them around.
The land owner should be the one who defines privacy. If I own a region and I have a corner of the sim that I want to remain private, and someone enters my region, they -- as visitors -- should not be able to remain hidden from me just because *I* am in a private area. If you mark the parcel with the landing point as private, sure. Then they are in a private area too. But if you don't, it's a public parcel and therefore I should be able to see across my own privacy zone borders into the non-private area and see who has arrived. Just because I want a bit of privacy doesn't mean I must
extended it to visitors in a different parcel. This is why two-way filtering isn't appropriate.
If we have this kind of privacy, it has to be both ways... group agents blocked from visitor view and visitor agents blocked from group view. That seems to me the very easiest way to accomplish this task, and the most efficient.
If you do it both ways, it means estate owners and parcel owners wouldn't even see
the griefer on the same region, even if they were in a parcel that did not have privacy enabled. If I have a private home next to my store and someone shows up wearing a griefer object and starts harrassing my customers, they are going to get mighty peeved that I'm right there in the region not doing anything about it. Because I can't see the harasser, at all. Because they
are in a privacy zone? No, it's because *I* am in a privacy zone so that is why I can't see them
? That doesn't make any sense to me, especially if it's my land they are on, and I did NOT enable privacy there.
To me, making it two-way ignores the privacy OFF setting of the other parcel that the other user is in.
Consider too the ease of implementation: it's a lot easier to check group membership than to check whether it's a sim, owned parcel, rented parcel, parcel-my-friend lends me, etc.
That's not true. Group-related operations are often the most expensive of all operations. Especially in large groups.
Just check to see if group privacy is set... if the visitor is part of group or not, viola!
What does this actually mean? Are you suggesting it's not the group setting on the parcel that would be checked? That this would be somehow not related to land in any way? If so... which group? If I am in 50 groups (I am), and I entered a region where you were, and you were in 50 groups, which one defines whether I can see you or you can see me? If the server has to check each group I'm in for a new privacy setting (which doesn't exist in any user interfaces in any viewer) and not let you see me unless you were in the same group? And do that for every group I am in and you are in? If it's a group privacy option, and let's say you enabled it on Elfclan and I'm in Elfclan, if I go do IDI, does that mean nobody else can see me there (except Eflclan members)? What if I'm in two groups (or three, or more) with privacy enabled? What if you are also in 3 out of 4? You still wouldn't be able to see me if it was only group-based, rather than based on the parcel you were on.
It has to be location-based, which means land-based, or the grid would look empty to most users, even at a crowded event. Even if it is parcel-based, I think what you're saying is that users in other parcels tagged with the same group
would not be able to see me unless they were in the group specified by my land parcel, in which case all the problems I mentioned above with the granularity of specifying a privacy zone would apply. (I could never have privacy from other group members.)
Plus it would probably be much
more costly than the current parcel checks. Remember parcels are defined on a region, groups are global and in the central database, far far from the region data.
Balpien Hammerer wrote:
I find the parcel privacy approach rife with problems because it is only making invisible the avatars in the parcel. Everything else is still visible.
You are specifically describing LL's partial implementation here; that is specific to SL and I agree with you, I think it's pretty horrible. I would suggest that, in IW, a private parcel should mean just that: nothing leaves the parcel. No avatars, no prims, no chat, no voice, no particle generators, nothing other than the terrain. Private is private.
Access defines who and what can enter a parcel; privacy defines what activities can leave a parcel and be seen by others outside the parcel (avatar movements, animations, prims, sounds, chat, voice, particles, etc).
I can well understand two or more avatars, having their shared but private moment, might prefer to keep their presence invisible. also, it turns out this kind of invisibility has some nice uses in RP (the cloak of invisibility). So, instead of parcel invisibility, why not just add the ability of avatars to make themselves and and all attachments invisible. Make it a personal option instead of some funky parcel attribute.
The reason that wouldn't work is that privacy is really location-based privacy zones (whether that is parcel-based or not). The "two or more" part of your description is the problem. If it's not location-based, there is no "inside" and "outside" the privacy zones. You won't see the others that you think of
as inside the zone, since there is no zone for them to be inside. Since avatar access
zones are defined as parcels, it makes a lot of sense to extend that to privacy as well, which I believe is why LL chose that same model. Unfortunately they did a partial and inconsistent implementation, which suggests to most people that it's flawed, when the concept is actually sound; it is just that their execution of the concept is poor.