OK... let's see if this works... I am sending this from a different ISP
than I normally do but hoping the list looks at the replyTo address...
Anyway to the topic at hand...
At 12:12 PM 19/07/2000 -0400, Jeff Sonstein wrote:
> > A person should be able to take their own Avatar into any world
> > they choose.
>
>not a problem
When a person enters a world they get to choose one of the standard avatars
or a custom one (in VNet). Perhaps we need a default or previous one listed
in some kind of VNet settings file on the user's machine. This way they can
go to a VNet world they have never been to before, run by a server that has
never seen this user before, and yet the user doesn't have to go thru the
hassle of locating their usual or favorite avatar's address on the net. Of
course this default needs to be able to be undone when you wish, letting
you alter your avatar and ensuring that your little kid, who might like to
enter the world as the penguin from Wallace & Grommit, doesn't ruin your
desire to be taken seriously when attempting to deliver a heavy talk on
quantum mechanics. :-)
Perhaps at the entry screen to a VNet world there could be a few Radio buttons:
- choose an avatar
- use my favorite avatar
- continue using my previous avatar
The first is the same as it currently is when entering a VNet world. The
second one uses a previously set favorite avatar's address (as a string
held somewhere on the user's machine -- in a cookie? or in a special VNet
cache directory?) and loads it as the custom avatar. The third is similar
but is the previous avatar used... it could be saved to a special location
on the user's machine either at set intervals, like every 15 minutes, or
else when the user exits VNet -- unfortunately, the browser's propensity to
crash on exit may make the latter unreliable.
> > This would imply that if you are wizard, citizen etc those powers
> > hold true everywhere because those rights are assigned via the Avatar.
>
>not true
>
>rights are associated with the *user*
>not the avatar which the user chooses for this session
>[or they may just keep
> what they used in the last session
> which is the default]
If a person has built a world then they should have the final decision on
how their space is used. Other people are visitors... like people in your
home. Unlike a bricks and mortar house anybody can build a virtual world so
if someone is not happy with a particular world owner's decision it is no
problem really to go elsewhere or build their own space. (OK at the moment
owning a VNet world requires the person to have server access, but I am
hoping for a peer-to-peer solution soon, so I am addressing this to the
longer term.)
The owner should be able to confer all rights, or none, at their own
discretion. I personally favor the idea of imposing as few limits as
possible, but I don't think this is something that should (or even can) be
thrust upon other world owners.
> > Problem is that the rights and functions of person vary not just by who
> > they are but where they are.
>
>so maybe user/WRL as "composite key" to find rights??
>def not avatar
Your avatar may have certain capabilities built into it (e.g. humanoid
movement allowing it to dance), but a world owner may decide to limit what
can be done in their own world. I can, for example, imagine the owner of a
maze world wishing to disable the ability to fly so that people can't cheat.
> > You can say - just limit everyone, and offer powers & rights in return for
> > good citizenship. But this gets unwieldy in the long term. Politics,
> > jealousy, arrogence are in play. Rules change, get bent along with
> > people...Mistakes and misunderstandings are still made by "empowered"
> > people.
>
>yeeeeees
>and your point is... <g>
>
>my point is
>that is how the "real world" works
>so why not?
I am not keen on feudal systems and hierachies in VR. This is what they do
in ActiveWorlds and I am sure this is why it is so rife with petty
jealousies and hatred. OuterWorlds is a much nicer AW universe to visit and
I wonder if it is largely because they have abandoned many of the
hierarchies AW has.
I think just 2 types of people should be in VR: the world owner(s) and the
visitors. I think this is the only natural way to do it. It also makes the
job of building the server/client software much easier. Visitors have
control of the client programs on their machines, and the owner has control
of the server. The owner can confer control of the server to visitors if
they wish, but that must be their choice.
> > [...] I can see the variety of issues in VR theatre, Gaming, Work -
> > each place individually ( or each event) could need differing levels of
> > interaction from the people inside.
>
>true
>rights tied to user-in-a-place
>[not to avatar]
Not sure what is meant here...
> > PS I think everyone should have the right to boot folks out of a world.
>
>I disagree...
>perhaps "gag" them
>[so you don't get their chat-text]
>but not boot...
>I would like to reserve that for folks
>who have shown they can be trusted by the WRL owner
>to act in a responsible fashion
>
>can everyone kick anyone out of a performance space in RL??
>no
>you call security or the producer
I agree with Jeff (and Steve himself says as much too). The user should be
able to ignore (mute) anybody so that they can't hear (or see?) a nuisance
person, but that hassler remains in the world, audible (and visible) to
others till the owner decides to boot them. There is just no need for
anybody to be able to boot a person except the owner. And I have found that
an owner passing out that ability to others is a recipe for creating little
Hitlers out of otherwise normal people... bad news.
> > Oh and about HTML - The Town Square Library does open a new HTML
> > page, but for me alone. Other people in the world at the same time don't
>get a page
> > suddenly appearing ( Do they??? I guess I don't know for sure ).
>
>hmmmmm
>this might be problematical
>given the security model of
>an applet (like the VNet client)
>inside a web-browser context
>[can only open a socket back to the same machine
> from which it was served]
>
>anyone see a way out of this problem??
I can kinda imagine a tutor giving a talk on something sending a message to
the server, and the server then sending a message to all the clients to
open a window x wide y high containing z. As to the specifics of how this
would be done... I am not sure. The server doesn't even need to open the
window -- the java client on each machine could open the custom window on
receipt of a defined signal (which could be part of the VNet protocol).
>thanks for the discussion...
>most useful
Yeah, I am rapt more is happening on VNet.... slow though it is... wish I
could help more.
Best wishes,
- Miriam
>jeffs
>
>--
>Jeff Sonstein
>Assistant Professor
>Department of Information Technology
>Rochester Institute of Technology
>----------------------------------------
> http://ariadne.iz.net/
> http://www.it.rit.edu/~jxs/
> http://ariadne.iz.net/~jeffs/jeffs.asc
>----------------------------------------
>There are no bugs,
>there are just undocumented features
How I wish I could enumerate PI easily
3. 1 4 1 5 9 2 6
---------=---------=---------=---------=---------=---------=------
http://werple.net.au/~miriam
http://web.access.net.au/miriam
http://ariadne.iz.net/~miriam
Virtual Reality Association http://www.vr.org.au
AWABA - free kids' world http://www.awaba.com
