I've reported this before as an exploit or something to do with a rogue viewer used by griefers, in part because when I tested it before it seemed that I myself couldn't replicate it with the official SL viewer.
But I really focused on it tonight, and also TP'd in a scripter friend, and we both replicated it.
Danger Linden is wrong -- he's reiterating the way "SL is supposed to work," but it has a major bug that is making it work differently -- not as it was coded and intended. And this has been in place for months on end, I've reported it, and I've "gotten nowhere". I'm not sure if it was on the (now closed from view) JIRA (I was banned from the JIRA and couldn't even it view it).
So here we are in the screenshot above, replicating it.
1. The "Build" and "object entry" boxes on the "about land" menu for "everyone" and "group" are unchecked so the boxes are blank.
2. Two group members try rezzing prims, one with group tag, one without but still a member.
3. The prims rez despite the no-build and no-object-entry uncheck on the menu (see the screenshot -- land is all on "no build" and "no object entry" settings, prims are rezzing regardless).
4. Tried on Blue Steel, RC LeTigre and Second Life Server channel sims, and it was the same on all those three.
5. None of the group roles except officer have the powers to "toggle settings on about land" to "build" etc.-- so it's not that somebody is toggling settings.
6. On Linden Land, where I am not a member of the group obviously, where "everyone" is not checked off, I'm not able to rez a prim.
7. On my own land, if I log on with an alt that is not a group member, he cannot rez a prim and gets the message "the server does not alllow it".
8. Therefore, the bug is in effect for group members only.
If this bug were fixed, then you could have open groups with different levels of permissions for different roles, and give some roles in the group the right to toggle about land, then they could turn off group/everyone build, and their land wouldn't be griefed even though the group would be left open to membership.
An entry-level role like "tenant" could rez prims, but not rez them on land that said "no build' for "everyone" and "group" and they could also not toggle the "about land/build" menu boxes.
But this problem just isn't of interest to the Lindens to fix, or would require other things dear to their hearts to be rolled back or sacrified or who-knows-what.
And that's because they can just tell people to keep closed groups. They only invite people into their group after they pay or if they are trusted, and then they don't have to worry about the fact that group rules are broken.
Or they can tell people to go on private islands -- ban people from the whole island if you like, and give tenants estate permissions and they can ban them.
I refuse to close my groups. Second Life should be open; open groups enabling people to build on group land fosters creativity and socializing. People shouldn't have to queue up waiting for a land baron to send them a group permission, sometimes losing a day or two of rent and the use and access to their land while they wait.
"Openness" is supposedly the principle of the griefers' sims like Sandvik and open source sandlots -- there is no reason it can't be for rentals, too -- real openness, not the open source=closed society of coders.
Openness of groups is an enormous boon. I get new tenants every day, many of them new to SL. Every day. These people can jump in, put out a house, or build, or have friends over and build together and show each other items. This is the heart of SL. I don't see why this should be closed off when there is a function, in the design, in the viewer, that enables people to toggle build on and off that should work.
Of course, we were promised so many times that we would have granulated tools that would enable us to have openness and creativity -- and business! -- in a free and open market in SL yet "have the ability to control your experience with tools". Rodvik even said something new was coming (a year ago?) to help combat griefers.
It wasn't a priority, however.
But really, a lot of griefing would be curbed if they would address this bug that causes the settings for "no build" intended even for group members not to work if people are group members.
Just imagine if people could complete their builds, then turn off build and object entry -- so that they would not have the problems people constantly face with litter even for a minute or five minutes or griefing. When they needed to build again, they could turn it back on.
I'm fairly certain SL used to work that way -- that's why there are two boxes, duh! "Everyone" and "Group"!
The griefer who is whacking his axe right at this vulnerability in the group rules every day and harassing me for days and weeks and years on end now already is trying to destroy the openness of Second Life on just that point. He is trying to *force closure* and for ideological reasons. Even as he spouts nonsense about creativity and open source, what he means to do is make it so that people are forced to close their groups, their land, and the world due to griefing and become a security state.
Then, ironically, it becomes more vulnerable to griefing in some ways, especially via social hacks, and also becomes to close in on itself and lose its creativity and openness obviously and stagnate -- and become its opposite.
And that *is* the goal of Anonymous and all the other Bolshevik-like goon groups -- to make Second Life become unlike its ideals, to prove it unfit for human creativity and socializing, to destroy it so that the Internet and its structures can only be used by the totalitarians themselves.
I find this simple realization is very hard for people to grasp. They think open source cultist griefers are somehow still devoted to openness. Or they say "it's just a game, why are you crying about your e-lawn." Or they say, "fix your land settings" or "fix your group settings," it's your fault. They themselves often make closed groups and closed sims in their little griefy silos.
So what is to be done?
I don't think putting a cost on group membership is an option. Even $1 or $5 is too much a pain especially for someone new without Lindens yet, or not very many Lindens, or who can't figure out how to get them (they don't make it easy). It's a nuisance for people who leave and come back to the group frequently. It will reduce customers likely significantly. It's not worth it.
I think the only thing to do is to keep the groups open, keep abuse reporting the griefers, and eventually they go away. Usually they go away for a good long time when the Lindens finally seize their whole sim, because that's their base, and the alts draw from it.
I'm not solely interested in running a little rentals operations on the hard-scrabble Mainland, I'm interested in seeing how the society works and seeing if we can civilize its makers. Truly that's what it's always been about.
But the problem is that I don't have company in this. There are few intellectuals in SL to speak of, there are only shrill extremist partisans, particularly on Sluniverse.com. These problems don't engage them and they are not willing to fight for freedom -- they let the JIRA closure go in a heartbeat as soon as it was discovered that at least a few of the FIC would get to go on seeing it. Despicable.
The griefer has always tried to make this "about me" or pretend it's "a vendetta" that I wage against "kids". But of course griefers just like this, maybe even the same people, go and harass Fleep Tuque, the quintessential open source maven and open sim proponent, too. So it's not "about me".
I really didn't like seeing today a tenant with a lovely build and a bathysphere and docks get a huge red axe through her build, then later multiple effigies of me in blackface as an Obama campaigner, and slabs of black everywhere, finally crashing the sim and/or viewer. That's just goddamn creepy and sick. The griefer -- Joanna/Tizzers in an alt named "tizzersluvsyu" or perhaps Shaun Altman or perhaps Jim Korpov or perhaps Hazim Gazov, who knows -- threatened that he would keep coming back and harassing her so naturally she refunded and left. She has an unpleasant experience as a relatively new person; so do I, and I lose some money -- $10.65 US to be exact...Multiple that by literally hundreds of times...
Another tenant was griefed out of that spot, and I had stopped renting it completely, but then after there was a griefing hiatus for a few weeks, I had risked renting it. But the totalitarian believes he has a veto on whether I get to rent this. Several times he demanded to "get his land back" (both Joanna and Yeehaw Ragu would constantly sound this theme, Yeehaw because he was kicked out of a rental when he was first created, after he was connected to a griefing episode, and rightly so, and Joanna because he continued to stalk and heckle me from land he managed to get hold of from an oldbie punk store owner who sold it at a huge price -- and which was seized by the Lindens when the entire Woodbury crew was booted for the third time.
I haven't given up hope that the Lindens might finally do something about this -- they have before several times. But it does take its toll -- especially because no one cares. The principle of openness that I'm fighting for isn't something that anyone values as an intellectual proposition per se -- the only people who value it -- and fleetingly -- are the hundreds of tenants and their roomies and friends and builders and guests who avail themselves constantly to this open system without a thought of its conceptual underpinnings.
"Can you give me the group?" people have to say a thousand times a day in Second Life. Not in my communities -- that function that so plumps up the smug burgher's vanity in SL in the land baron class is that lordly act of sending the invitation -- but I never send them. It's open to join any time.
The Lindens should care more about keeping Second Life that way in general.