Current Project: HUD7
| Issue ID# 179 | Give someone a chance to decline if being offered ownership. | |
| Status: Abandoned | Version: 7.1.7 | Priority: 3 |
| Assigned to: | Submitted by: Miriam Himanez | Attached file: |
| Type: Idea |
Submitted: 24/02/2016 20:31:34 PST |
Last Update: 05/04/2016 17:25:53 PDT |
|
Description: To set someone as Owner is most easy. It needs just 4 clicks to be done, if the desired person is near and if not their name needs to be typed into the menu additionally, done within a few seconds as well. This works even if the person isn't online. The new Owner doesn't receive any message; instead the keybox is being sent immediately. This just doesn't feel correct to me. What about at least disabling the possibility to set a person being offline as Owner in general? Actually I'd go even a step further: New Owner and sub should face each other for this to work (similar to locking/unlocking), so both should be very near together. Owner could receive a popup with a question then, something like ">> insert name << offers you to submit to you. Do you accept? Options to reply to this could be: "Yes.", "No." and even "Never!" perhaps. In the last case the person's avatar-key could be safed into a blacklist sub wouldn't be able to access, preventing sub to ask that one again. What about an additional job for Fingers in your warehouse in the case the person wants "Never!" to be undone some time? Vice versa there could be a similar option for a random person clicking sub's gear as well. That one could receive a popup after clicking like for example: "You just touched >> insert name <<'s collar/cuff/gag. Do you want her/him to surrender to you?" followed by "Yes." or "No.". In the first case sub would receive a matching questioning popup then: ">> insert name << claims your submission. Do you surrender?" followed by "Yes.", "No." and "Never!" as well. Of course here Fingers could realize to undo a "Never!" as well. For the second case there's already an existing popup that could be kept. |
||
Note ID# 839:
| User: | Lulu | Submitted: | 04/04/2016 | ||
|
Hi Miriam, I've thought about this quite a bit. What you suggest about needing the Onwer to accept does make sense, and was something I had considered. The only issue I have is this: currently, any sub that buys her first LULU gear can easily add her Owner *without* the Owner being online. And it's added in one step. I like that one-step thing a lot, and the ability to do so immediately without waiting for the Owner to come online. And so far, I don't think there's anyone spamming unwilling Owners. As for the touch-to-surrender option, perhaps it's something I can add in a Hardcore plugin which can have more comprehensive Ownership games. What do you think? |
|||||
Note ID# 840:
| User: | Lulu | Submitted: | 04/04/2016 | ||
|
Updated status to Need Info from New. |
|||||
Note ID# 841:
| User: | Miriam Himanez | Submitted: | 04/04/2016 | File attached: | Gear_responses.png |
|
Hi Lulu. I repeatendly heard something about "subs" using OpenCollars to harass unwillingly Owners in the past, causing OC-developers to implement Owner-consent finally, anyhow I agree with you. One spending money on a Lulu-set surely has something more serious in mind, than just to use it to annoy other people. For touching in general, a short feedback to the wearer would be nice. Collar/cuffs/gag show any random touching person an info-popup. The leash-ring even offers a little menu and the collar-bell reacts with a private chat-message. The wearer doesn't recognize anything - just hears the bell jingling for whatever reason perhaps. Only exception is the slave-tag announcing in local chat when clicked. (Please view attached file for all named gear-responses.) As wearer I'd like to have a hint who is the one trying to fumble at my gear. A short chat-message in private would be enough. (Which wouldn't make sense if a touched leash-ring isn't worn of course!) A touch-to-surrender option, like the one I described in this report would even be better than the just mentioned message. And a hardcore/advanced ownership-plugin would be great, of course! Please let me tell about some ideas coming to my mind after having read your comment: Sub should be the only one having access to it as long as it's switched off. Once enabled it should be completely out of her reach. If she's unowned, anyone around should have full access to her gear. The first one picking up her keybox would become Primary Owner. If she's already owned, her Owner would become Primary; if she has multiple Owners, she would need to choose one. This Primary Owner would be the only one having the complete power. Locks and restrictions set by this one couldn't be overridden by Secowners and the plugin-settings would be out of their reach as well. To become Secowner, one just would need to get a keybox. There could be different possibilities to get one: - Primary used HUD-menu to send it. - Secondary used HUD-menu to send it. (If Primary grants Secondaries access to this feature!) - Sub used HUD-menu to send it. (If Primary grants sub access to this feature!) - HUD sent it automatically after gear having been touched. (If Primary has this feature enabled!) A Primary could boot a Secondary at any time. Secondaries just could remove themselves and sub wouldn't have any say in this of course. Primary would be the only one able to switch off again the plugin, once it has been enabled by sub. If the Primary boots sub or even resets the Owner's list, it should be switched off too. (So Fingers could help, if sub needs to run away from a Primary!) This was much about Owners, not that much about hardcore directly. Actually a Primary having this power, exspecially those possibilities to manage Secondaries at free will, is already a central hardcore-aspect to me. I haven't got much to add so far. Of course there shouldn't be any safeword-possibilities for sub. If she's stuck in an automatic trap, for example, she'd need a Secowner to free her. If that one isn't able to switch off her RLV-relay, because Primary activated it before...well...she just could hope, that there is a feature like "Prim=Sec" enabling Secondaries to undo restrictions, locks and some other settings (Not the plugin-settings and the Owner's management of course!) Primary has set before...and of course Primary must have set this to "on" as well. /Me shows a venomous smile. |
|||||
Note ID# 842:
| User: | Lulu | Submitted: | 05/04/2016 | ||
|
"For touching in general, a short feedback to the wearer would be nice. " is interesting. Perhaps you could add a formal wish to https://lu2.me/wish (and even add a separate Feature Request here - I look at both lists) ? Not sure when I can get to it, but it's something worth considering. I've also taken note of your thoughts on the Hardcore plugin, for when it's time for me to make it 🙂 I might talk to you more about it later. Meanwhile I'll close this then; might resurrect this if we ever need to. |
|||||
Note ID# 843:
| User: | Lulu | Submitted: | 05/04/2016 | ||
|
Updated status to Abandoned from Need Info. |
|||||