New Generation Auth System

[Garvin]

Hi, i opened this discussion cause i think this might be a good place
to talk about what Satomi suggests or propses here:
http://code.google.com/p/opencollar/wiki/NGAuth

[Satomi Ahn]

Hello.
Good idea to discuss this here.

I would like to add that I had an interesting discussion with Cindy
Breil yesterday who pointed to me something I overlooked in this
design: indeed a collar is more than any other part of the "gear"
(everything that is not the collar: cuffs, blindfold, gag, ballet
boots, ...).

You might remember Marine explained in a recent post that one does not
"own" the toys because they are just objects, and that what matters is
rather who is holding keys.

Cindy more or less agrees with this but reminded me the collar is a
special case as it is very symbolic
- you are owned by someone and proud of it
- you will never remove it unless you break this special relationship
(which I don't like because I change my collar design as often as my
shirt... but that's me!... and I am not owned, so naturally inclined
towards keyholding paradigm)
I also remember Garvin and various people telling me that Marine's
collar is more or less useless because it uses this keyholding
paradigm and not the ownership paradigm.
The fact the collar is something very special and permanent was also
raised by Nandana in the discussion in issue 550 as a reason for
having the collar as a natural central OC item (rather than a HUD).

In what I propose now, both paradigms are merged, so that the gear and
collar can work as well in an OC style and RR style.
One point of view would be to say it would be the best of both worlds.
Another point of view would be to say it is the worst of both worlds,
as your gear would have owners and your collar keys. But I would argue
that the owners could limit the keys to themselves on the collar.
Still remains the issue that the wearer would not be the master of the
keys of their gear.

Maybe there is a contradiction in having all of this at once:
settings/owners sharing between every worn device, keyholding paradigm
for the gear and ownership paradigm for the collar.

Maybe we should take this into account and make the coupling more
loose, accepting that ownership only concerns "collar class"
attachments (but then is it even useful to store ownership into db
considering you will never change your collar and wear only one? well
yes maybe: you may have to reset the collar for some reasons, and need
to update it sometimes).

Now, looking back, I understand that OC being initially a collar, the
current ownership paradigm had been chosen. However, if we intend to
put more effort into the gear, I believe it would be neat to have it
work with keys. I would be interested to have your opinion in this.

[ardella levee]

Open Collar Group Members:

 

I am not certain if this is a possible addition to the ownership issue, but I believe it is related to that issue.

 

I am not well versed in all capabilities and option offered by the OC (which I thoroughly enjoy so far), but I have not yet found any feature such as is found with the IControl system in which the owned person can select an option, which removes from the owned person the ability to add or delete owners and leaves that capability with the owner. 

 

iControl calls this "Hardcore."  I find this a very special ability as it precludes the sub from arbitrarily and or indiscriminately allow ownership rights to a new person.  As only the sub, can decide and activate the hardcore option, it also presents another option for the sub and the owner to learn a little about each other before the sub decides he or she can have faith in the Master/Mistress before really restricting their options with one person, not themselves.

 

It can create the opportunity for discussion between the owner, who can add or delete owners, and the submissive. 

 

As I said, not being fully familiar with all aspects of the OC system it may be available and I just need to find it.  If it is not available Possible inclusion in any change in the owner system might benefit from it addition to the system.

 

 

 

--
Mistress ardella
Valkyerie Goddess

[Garvin]

Quick reply to Ardella:

That is the default and not changeable behaviour of OpenCollar 3.x:
Once an owner is set, only the owner has control who to add as
secowner or to enable/disable group or open access.
Imho this is how it should be... you set someone as secowner until you
are certain you want to be owned then you do the final step and give
over all control by setting the trusted Dominant as owner.


On Aug 11, 4:15 pm, ardella levee <ardella.le...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

[Garvin]

Well, this discussion gets quite complex and covers many sub topics i
think but well, we need to start somewhere :)

First i think this is a matter of termination... i have the key or i
am owner... what's the difference in the end? i have the power, right?
Now in Marine's items is only ONE key... so i take the key for the
collar, the cuffs, the gag and that makes me owner and removes every
possibility of the wearer do it anything else with the gear... (which
causes people to write owner plugins that over rule the key settings
again...)
That concept is different from the more traditional owner, secowner
etc one but imo more limited as well.

Dont beat me yet, Satomi, i know you want to expand this... but i
mainly wanted to point out the differences between the two existing
concepts.

So we have a collar here... what is a collar these days in sl? I think
it is many things, different for many people who wear it:
1) it is a symbol and (due to sl magic) enabled power exchange to one
person... which would be the Owner of the sub
--> the sub sets an owner and transfers the control over the collar
(actually the collar belongs to the Dom(me) and the sub just wears
it!)
1a) the Owner wants to allow others to also have control and can
assign further roles (secowners) or set a group or open access
1b) due to our db system we enable the possibility to have the collar
settings stored and people can change the primitive collar (which i
think is a really much liked thing and quite often used, not only by
self-owned collar wearers).
--> actually by having this... we already took away the limitation of
wearing "only" one primitive collar but allow to keep the collar with
its settings over a bunch of different designs
2) it is a tool, used to have animations for rp handy, to allow people
temporarily some sort of control but the collar as tool is owned by
the wearer and the wearer is in control who can control what
--> the sub remains self owned and uses secowners or group or open
access to grant others control

So mainly we have two different kind of usages here i think:
1) a clear D/s collar
2) a collar as tool for bdsm, capture what ever play

Where ever we go here in the end, i think it is important that we
maintain the usability for the collar as a plain D/s collar where one
can give control to someone else and not revoke that easily again (but
running away of course)

When i look now at your proposal, i dont not really see a big
difference in the roles...
(casual) user = group/open access
leyholder = secowner
owner and wearer anyway

if she change the abilities of each role that is again another sub
topic ;)

So i actually do not really see a big if at all difference if you talk
about keys or ownership... it's again for me just a way to name things

And what i miss is still the several full owners or did i miss
something?

I dont really understand what you say here (it's kinda paradox for
me):
"For instance we could imagine a system where there is only one key
(and thus one keyholder), but a limited list of people who can
actually take keys"
Does that mean... (as i compare keyholder with secowners) there is
always only one secowner and only the owner with the masterkey can
take control?
Isnt that rather a further limitation than an expansion?
Then you go back again to lists of people (which is nothing else as
current blacklist and secowners?):
"Sets of people should be definable using several means: extensive
lists of avatars, SL groups, statements like "everyone but ... "."
please take out the plural of SL Groups here... one group is
troublesome enough to handle right imo how the hell shall people
manage to do this with multiple groups?

[Satomi Ahn]

I believe you're making the usual confusion we make in OC: people and roles.
Ideally, the auth system would assign roles to people touching the
collar, and roles would determine what you can do.

But as it is now, the only difference between COMMAND_SECOWNER and
COMMAND_GROUP is the way those "roles" are attributed (in short they
are not the same groups of people), and never what they can do....
which means they actually are the same role, and thus should be the
same constant in the message map.

Now, the main difference I make between keyholder and secondary owner
is that keyholder is a proper role you obtain at a given time,
following rules that can be defined independently from the role,
whereas a secondary owner is _someone_ that is privileged with respect
to the sub: someone already in a clearance list.

Secondary ownership is actually more a permanent status than a role in
the collar (the actual role being the same as that of group access!).

Rules for obtaining keys could be one of the following:
- anyone taking keys when they are left on the collar
- anyone knowing some passwords
- anyone in a list of secondary owners
- anyone wearing a red hat and a green jacket
- ...

Now, one or several keys per gear item? One is more convenient and
natural I think. But that does not mean that several people could not
obtain the key at a given time (following the rules).

[Satomi Ahn]

I don't think it is off-topic, as in my proposal, self-owned wearers
would automatically go to hardcore mode when keys are taken (which is
another big difference with the current secondary owner powers in OC).

[ardella levee]

Garvin:

  As I said I was not fully aware of all of the positive feature in OC.  Thank you for quick response and my further education.  Have a good week.

Mistress Ardella Levee