How would you like the feature to work?

It's simple, in parcels that insist on complicated Resident rules, and many of them insist on Resident compliance surrounding voice. Parcel security has a few measures at hand. 1. EJECT, 2. BAN. If like me, when you are on voice, you don't think before you speak, and risk upsetting people perhaps the Security might choose measure 3. VOICE BAN. If you're going to set parcel rules that involve voice and your resident's actions that might involve a BAN, how about just blocking them from using VOICE in the first place? Those with mental health issues like ADD, often don't filter themselves and are tempted to talk on voice when enticed by another resident. However, this seems to cause a headache for the parcel administrators. If after a VOICE ban, the resident still causes a problem, then it's an escalation from VOICE to a ban. It creates another level of punishment, between eject and a BAN. I think it might be worthwhile. I was also considering that those who are aware of this psychological fault might elect to disable voice altogether, to take away the temptation.

Why is this feature important to you? How would it benefit the community?

I've known a fair few, including myself that have no filter, they simply say what they think. This gets people with ADD into all sorts of problems, as it's more than likely somebody is going to take anything I say the wrong way. If you're security on a parcel, and a person is getting into trouble on voice, you can ensure that they don't irritate your voice users again. Sometimes it can be as simple as leaving the channel open, due to forgetfulness.

I think Secondlife should make reasonable adjustments for those who have mental health issues surrounding the platform. More often than not, security officers assume that an accidental infarction is a deliberate one.

On the other side of the fence, if a resident is having trouble, a security officer can offer a solution that doesn;t involve an outright ban of the parcel, with the condition that they do not do the same on community open chat. Otherwise, they will have no choice but to issue a Ban.

The difference between VOICE and community chat is that you can read and edit community chat before you submit, you can't edit or modify what you say on VOICE. And that's why, those who are in parcels with voice, often find they get punished for a simple misuse of their own voice on microphone. Whether or not if they intended to or accidentally.

There is of course another way forward, you can speak, listen to your voice, and then submit if your happy with it.

That would also considerably reduce the BAN related voice incidents.

Original Jira Fields

| Field | Value | | ------------- | ------------- | | Issue | BUG-234539 | | Summary | New parcel ban list in relation to Voice. | | Type | New Feature Request | | Priority | Unset | | Status | Accepted | | Resolution | Accepted | | Reporter | Creepy Triangle (creepy.triangle) | | Created at | 2023-10-12T19:17:15Z | | Updated at | 2023-10-18T18:11:52Z | ``` { 'Build Id': 'unset', 'Business Unit': ['Platform'], 'Date of First Response': '2023-10-18T13:11:52.680-0500', 'How would you like the feature to work?': "It's simple, in parcels that insist on complicated Resident rules, and many of them insist on Resident compliance surrounding voice. Parcel security has a few measures at hand. 1. EJECT, 2. BAN. If like me, when you are on voice, you don't think before you speak, and risk upsetting people perhaps the Security might choose measure 3. VOICE BAN. If you're going to set parcel rules that involve voice and your resident's actions that might involve a BAN, how about just blocking them from using VOICE in the first place? Those with mental health issues like ADD, often don't filter themselves and are tempted to talk on voice when enticed by another resident. However, this seems to cause a headache for the parcel administrators. If after a VOICE ban, the resident still causes a problem, then it's an escalation from VOICE to a ban. It creates another level of punishment, between eject and a BAN. I think it might be worthwhile. I was also considering that those who are aware of this psychological fault might elect to disable voice altogether, to take away the temptation.\r\n", 'ReOpened Count': 0.0, 'Severity': 'Unset', 'Target Viewer Version': 'viewer-development', 'Why is this feature important to you? How would it benefit the community?': "I've known a fair few, including myself that have no filter, they simply say what they think. This gets people with ADD into all sorts of problems, as it's more than likely somebody is going to take anything I say the wrong way. If you're security on a parcel, and a person is getting into trouble on voice, you can ensure that they don't irritate your voice users again. Sometimes it can be a simple as leaving the channel open, due to forgetfulness.", } ```

secondlife / jira-archive

[BUG-234539] New parcel ban list in relation to Voice. #11447

How would you like the feature to work?

Why is this feature important to you? How would it benefit the community?