RLV 1.21 brought along a new command, @permissive. From the Wiki:
- Allow/deny permissive exceptions : "@permissive=<y/n>"
Implemented in v1.21 When denied, all restrictions turn into their "secure" counterparts (if any). This means an exception to a restriction will be ignored if it is not issued by the same object that issued the restriction. Using non-secure restrictions (the original ones, like @sendim, @recvim etc) and not using @permissive allow the avatar to benefit from exceptions issued by different objects.
Friends of mine expressed concerns about this new command, friends who have exceptions to their dominants, submissives and hell just every day friends built in to other attachments. They feared that this restriction would become commonplace and as their dominants collectively do not permit having their IMs cut off, quite legitimately I might add, that they would no longer be able to freely play in RLV playgrounds.
At the time I acknowledged the concern but didn’t give it much credence. The restriction is, in my eyes, a strong one that should not be entered in to without consent. That is why Marine put exceptions in to IM blocking in the first place, it’s not a glitch, it’s a feature.
I was further comforted by the rather obvious warning.
Warning : Using this command (or any secure version of the original commands) may silently discard exceptions issued by different objects (it is even its primary purpose), hence some products may appear to cease working while this restriction is in effect. For example, a product that allows the avatar to always be able to send IMs a particular friend will not be able to overcome a @sendim_sec or a @permissive command sent by another object, and will look like it is broken. Therefore, use with caution and make the user aware of how secure your own product is !
I mean that’s pretty clear isn’t it? I mean it’s the only restriction that has a warning not about the technical nature of it, but about the use of it. Surely the toy makers of SL will take heed.
Alas I’m wrong. The other day a friend of mine was trapped by, of all things, a lamppost. Leaving aside the fact that a lamppost has no business cutting off IM when it’s in automated trap mode, it most certainly doesn’t have any business over-riding exceptions to that restriction!
Understand this, playground architects and toy builders. Indiscriminate use of the permissive command will ruin the RLV experience of many subs. Put a bit of thought in to the toys you deploy and follow the golden rule of RLV; if it’s more likely to detract from the scene, don’t do it!
Shuggi's Blog 
This should not only go out to those toy builders, but also to some dominants who want to keep their subbies under strict control.
“I am able to turn on that “block all but me” switch – thus I will do turn on that “block all but me” switch”.
I already do know some some dominants that think like that – forbidding communication with others but themselves.
Not knowing what they are really doing to their subbies.
And this RLV command now gives them some extra control.
Yes, being isolated can be fun – but only for a period of time.
I love being restricted and isolated, maybe as decorative piece of art, maybe just gagged or controlled by an weird implant. But not permanently.
Being isolated for long periods of time, without the possibility to IM you friends can lead to an empty friends list at ease.
Just getting a “XYZ cannot send or receive IM” all the time you want just to say hello, three dots when you want to talk to your friend in chat is no fun – and why should you talk to someone who cannot talk to you?
As a matter of personal taste I agree with your views, however we must recognize that the parties involved are consenting.
That is a very different beast to an inanimate object which locks someone down to such a degree with no negotiation.
Well… if both really want the submissive to loose all connections and friends in SL and be dependent to her dominant only, that is fine and I do not have any problem with that.
But I see the problem in public playgrounds/RPs and such, and in subbies looking for a Mistress at any cost (and yes, there are some out in the wilderness of SL):
Bringing back a hidden map is easy, getting back lost and upset friends usually is not.
So would be great if there was a debug setting to allow or disallow that command.
Although I basically agree with your view, one always should remember something Marine underlined very clearly (not for the first time, but perhaps for the first time THAT adamantly) in her tutorial about RealKey (here: http://realrestraint.blogspot.com/2009/08/rr-tutorial-realkey.html ) that after all, scripts are just a tool and that a cheat-out should always be the ultimate ratio when something is not going the way it goes.
Yes, I know very well no serious RPr wants to cheat, lest she should be labeled as a time-waster… but it’s also true no dom(me) would like to be labeled as someone whose subs or prisoners have a tendency to cheat out. Finding myself, quite often, in possession of some people’s keys, I like to try and push them as far as I feel they can go, but I am always wary of doing that too much. I don’t want anyone to cheat out on me and I would rather have them ask me OOC I am doing that too much.
That is to say that, well, even long-term isolation, and the threat of forcing someone to lose his or her friends, can be a powerful and intense way of giving the RP a special twist – I know I did that to a close friend, a while ago, and it lasted a couple of months which were very pleasant for both of us (I remember I had to take care, on the other side, of mutual friends who feared they were being cut off, to let them know it was a long RP – and we both gave it up when a very close mutual friend started getting really freaked by the sheer duration of the story). I think, as usual, everything should be evaluated on the specific situation.
As a general rule of thumb, though and again, I totally subscribe with what you say: it has to make sense on some level, and it has to make sense for both players. The fact one is using a lamppost or a cloak is, I believe, only a matter of style – but it’d be sad to give up some potentially intense scene just because it could be done better some other time. That other time might just not occur again.
Eh, this was a lamppost set to auto-trap with no other user intervention: i.e. empty sim, no-one else around and it grabs you on an open relay.
There is no RP reason for that that readily springs to mind.