This function is commonly used as a method for ejecting an unwanted avatar from a region. It is very useful for situations in which a parcel takes up most or all of a single island estate. In these situations, using the eject function is not effective, as it merely sends the avatar to the corner of the sim. The reason that it is used as a scripting function in addition to being available via estate management tools is specifically so that objects can be deeded to a group so as to allow the owners to let trusted individuals remove unwanted and disruptive avatars.

Adding a dialog for llTeleportAgentHome() would defeat the entire purpose of utilising this function for land security. There is no dialog for llTeleportAgentHome() for the same reason that there is no dialog for llEjectFromLand(). These are legitimate land management tools given only to the owners for the purpose of exercising their right to determine who may and may not access their parcel.

And as for the reasons why llTeleportAgent() would require more restrictions than llTeleportAgentHome(), this should be obvious:

llTeleportAgentHome() sends the avatar to their home location, a location chosen by the target avatar and known to them. It generally is either a mainland Linden telehub or a parcel that they own or are a part of the ownership group. In any event, it is a parcel that the individual is at least somewhat comfortable entering. Furthermore, the individual who is triggering the function does not necessarily know the location where the target is being sent (although I suppose he could know that avatar's home location), thus allowing for some privacy.

By contrast, llTeleportAgent() could send an avatar to any location on the grid. As we know, SecondLife contains many...ummmm.....diverse areas. Some areas are ones that might make individuals feel uncomfortable, others might be free-fire combat zones. These are a few reasons for requiring a dialog before teleporting an avatar to any location on the grid. On the other hand, teleporting an avatar to their chosen home location does not need such a dialog. The function is already rightly restricted to land-owners as part of the estate management tools. Adding a dialog would only serve to make the function completely unusable.

"Adding a dialog would only serve to make the function completely unusable. "

The same objection applies to llTeleportAgent(). The whole point to it when it was almost introduced in 1.8 was to allow for non-linear builds.

"Adding a dialog for llTeleportAgentHome() would defeat the entire purpose of utilising this function for land security."

"land security" is the excuse used for retaining all kinds of half-broken functionality in SL and allowing abusive behavior by landowners... and there's no such thing as security and privacy in SL in practice, except for private estates. I've had vehicles lost flying half a mile above the ground, no objects in sight, and no way of getting back to where I was, because some landowner thought it was fun to llUnSit() and llTeleportAgentHome() without any warning... and that was perfectly acceptable.

Don't you think that made me uncomfortable?

No, landowners use this function for griefing aircraft owners far too often, they have to be limited so they can't be used without warning.

Private estates were exactly what I was discussing. On an unconnected private estate, llTeleportAgentHome() is the only method of removing an avatar. llEject() simply deposits them in the corner of the sim. Banning them does the same but puts up ban lines. In both situations, an avatar can still lag the sim to death using scripted attachments.

As for private land tools, I'm sorry but they are a necessity. I love flying too, the first thing I built in SL was Cubey Terra's DIY plane kit, but land owners have a right to decide who to allow onto their property, and they have a right to remove avatars from their property. There are public, Linden-owned regions in SecondLife as well, where anyone can go. Privately-owned land is PRIVATE. If the owner wishes for you to leave, you must leave.

And as for teleporting them to a place they might find uncomfortable, I was thinking of more than just a combat zone, I was thinking along the lines of, for instance, a hardcore sex club. On the other hand, there is nothing that a land-owner can do to force an avatar to remain in their region, so if they chose to make their stay in their own region uncomfortable, the avatar could leave.

As for your experience, yes, it was perfectly acceptable. You were over his land. He was paying either Linden Labs or a private estate owner to use that land. It is not griefing. In fact, the entire point of adding in these land owner tools was to give land owners legitimate methods for securing their land so that they would not have to use methods that might be considered griefing.

How would you propose that someone on a private estate, where ejection was not an option, remove an unwanted avatar if your proposal were implemented?

llTeleportAgent as proposed would simply be less useful for griefing than llTeleportAgentHome as llTeleportAgentHome is currently implemented.

I'm also a landowner. I've been a landowner since 2005. I was on a private island before I was on the mainland. I've got a non-human avatar so I suspect I've had more than the average amount of problems with griefers, so this isn't a case of someone ignoring your problem because their ox hasn't been gored, it's someone who's willing to take his hits on his own land if that's what it takes to get people to really look at their objectsions to llTeleportAgent with open eyes.

And llTeleportAgentHome() is not useful for griefing whatsoever. It can ONLY be used by the land owner (or implemented via scripted objects deeded to the land-owning group). It is not griefing for the land owner to remove an avatar from his parcel. I am defining "griefing" as any violation of the SecondLife Terms of Service. A land owner may unsit, eject, ban, or teleport home any avatar on his land. All you need to do to avoid that is to not be on his land. Simple. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to go onto someone else's land.

But most importantly, you still have not answered my central question:

If this proposal were implemented, how would you propose that someone on a single, unconnected private estate remove an unwanted avatar? Ejection is not an option for reasons that I mentioned above. If your proposal were implemented, and a disruptive individual simply clicked "no" on the dialog, what would you propose that the land/estate owner do?

I am an admin at a sim that would be in this predicament. llTeleportAgentHome() is our only real option for dealing with disruptive individuals. It is a very effective way to get rid of avatars who enter our sim and prevent people from playing. What are we supposed to do when they click "no"? Just beg them, "please Mr. Greefer-person, teleport away"?

Is a sim really worth USD $295 a month if it doesn't come with tools for removing disruptive individuals?

If that's not griefing, then no possible use of llTeleportAgent() would be griefing either, because as proposed it's even more restricted.

As for your central question, I don't expect the Lindens to implement this proposal, ever, even if it got actual votes. Do you? Honestly? That's not what this proposal is about. It's about putting my money where my mouth is for SVC-212.