In this case it now also works for non-owners of the age. Previously it only worked for owners because the ageInfoStruct does not contain the vault node ID, so it needed to be looked up somewhere, and that was in the AgesIOwnFolder.
I have a request from Cyan customer service to put a hold on this pull in regards to the MOULa Live server. Because it allows a neighborhood created by an avatar that is subsequently banned to be kept on the Nexus list by followers or more likely the banned explorer's new identity. True, in the current system there are ways around that but this change makes it too easy.
I need to think about this, in particular what to do with a banned avatar’s possessions. Maybe when an avatar is banned, if they are the sole owner of a neighborhood then it makes it 'private'.
OK, that sounds like a valid concern. In that case I guess we’ll leave MOULSCRIPT-ou PR #22, the actual implementation of the bumping behavior, out of Minkata as well for the time being. I think we can still include this one, which is only an API extension that might otherwise be useful too.
Making the hood private when an avatar is banned seems like the best solution, if that can be done on your side. Thinking out loud on what could be done on our side:
If it’s possible to determine from the vault whether a player is banned, we could skip the bumping if all owners of the hood are banned.
Maybe the bumping could only happen when there are other people present in the hood already. That makes it a bit harder for a griefer who is acting alone, but should not affect actually populated hoods that frequently have multiple players present. Although that may not cover all cases, such as the pellet points hood that people often visit alone just to take a look at the imager.
Maybe a bump could require a certain number of “votes” (with their feet) from different players. That would require somehow storing the last few “votes” (arrivals of unique players since the last bump) in the vault for each neighborhood. Maybe they could be parsed out of the visitors imager note text.
Yes, I think making the hood private when the owner is banned is a good one. Hopefully, I can just add that to the ban avatar/account stored procedure.
As far as your suggestions for the client side: 1) might be harder as there is not currently a "is this avatar banned" request. 2) and 3) sound like good fine tuning methods not even considering banned avatars.