[sldev] A patch to allow creation of megaprims from withinthe viewer

[Gordon Wendt]

Sidewinder, I think that rather than doing that (which could have unintended
results especially in existing estate scenarios) more fine grain control
should be developed on estate and especially group control of objects that
are inside of the estate/deeded to group so that estate/group owners can do
what they need and allow managers and tenants certain options for item
management including but not lmited to object return, object moving, object
resizing, script active/inactive, script reset, ban list control, etc...
Many of these things are already possible through group or estate
interfacing but clumsy at best and an overhaul of both of these systems
would benefit residents I think a lot more than just tiny steps.

-Gordon Wendt

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Sidewinder Linden <sidewinder at lindenlab.com>
wrote:

> Karl Stiefvater wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought the thrust of the design
>>> was that it would become possible for landowners to return objects that
>>> overlapped their parcels even if the center of the root prim wasn't on their
>>> parcel. This comment makes me think that you may mean that you're talking
>>> about returning objects that crossed parcel lines automatically. I think
>>> THAT would be a very bad idea, because there are a LOT of places where
>>> neighboring landowners have a common build with a common theme without
>>> joining the land itself in common. If that's the case then I would like to
>>> join in objecting to it.
>>>
>>
>> no no - you were right the first time.
>>
>> i guess that some ESTATE owners have content which crosses into their
>> tenants PARCELS (rental boxes and whatnot) and they're requesting some
>> mechanism to disable the encroaching return for their content.
>>
>> no, no plans to automatically return encroaching content.  i agree, that
>> would be madness.
>>
>>
>> K.
>>
> I think we had at one point, a couple of months ago, discussed the concept
> that content placed by an estate owner would not be returnable by tenants,
> since they are the ultimate owner of the area, and may have many sorts of
> content that are considered "built-in". is this still on the table? Would
> that solve the problem in a simple way?
>
> Sidewinder
>
> _______________________________________________
> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
> /index.html
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080517/7f0039d4/attachment.htm