katya Qork Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Hi,I originally had GWS security orbs on my land rentals, but had problems when some of them simply stopped ejecting - they would send a message to the offending avatar to say they were getting ejected, and then nothing would happen.I replaced my security with HippoSecure (for this, and other reasons). initially everything worked, but now this has started acting in exactly the same manner.With both systems I tried ressetting scripts, deeding, sim restarts etc (and all were/are configured with the same notecard), but nothing made any difference.Has enyone else had a similar problems with security orbs failing to eject after initially working?Thanks,Kat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiked Anton Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 SWA security systems are the best, i have never had a problem ejecting anyone and they always work wehter you own the land or rent it. I have never tried the others, but have been using SWA for a few years now and wont use anything else. period Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple Peccable Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I can assure you, katya, that the GWS has no problems ejecting either. By far the most likely cause is using the orbs on group owned land, but not having deeded the orbs (or vice versa). However, the system warns you of that, you should always check your local chat and Orb Status Reports for errors. Another common cause is not having the orbs in Eject Unknown (or Group Only access) mode. They default to being set to Allow Unknown. Since there are several different ways to set the orb's mode, the only sure way to check it is to use the Orb Status Report. Anyway, there is no reason to switch back from the hippo secure if you are happy with it and you get your ejection problems fixed. I just wanted to assure it is not bugs in the GWS code causing the problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katya Qork Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 Hi Triple, I wasn't implying that there was anything wrong with GWS, it just seems really strange that both systems initially worked, and then just stopped performing the last step to actually TP intruders home. The main reason I switched from GWS (apart from this issue) was that I couldn't protect a parcel bigger than 96 m by having a security panel in the house. Putting an orb in the middle of the parcels worked, but was too inconvenient, and putting one in the house left most of the parcel unprotected. The abilty to network, or have a local panel *and* and orb would be great. As far as deeding is concerned, my group owns all of the parcels and the orbs, so (for TP home) deeding isn't necessary , and both systems did initially work like this. I also tried deeding both after the problem started, but it made no difference - so I was just wondering if there's some kind of general SL problem out there. Regards, Kat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 katya Qork wrote: As far as deeding is concerned, my group owns all of the parcels and the orbs, so (for TP home) deeding isn't necessary. I don't know the answer to your problem but i thought I'd comment on the bit I quoted. To send an avatar home (or eject) the device must be owned by the land owner - the group in this case. So deeding to the group is necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orca Flotta Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 And again the most important question should be WHY??? Why does anyone want to spend money on protecting "their" land ... and from what? Orbs are focking annoying. If I wanted to be sent home I'd use the TP home, don't need no help with that, thankyouverymuch. You're not travelling/exploring SL very often, do ya? Else you'd know how badly those orbs are slayering mainland into a unusable patchwork.Just imagine you just spent 2 hours or more navigating your way from point A to point B when suddenly ... "GTFO of here, this land is MINEMINEMINE!!!" Free roads for free citizens!!! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple Peccable Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 You found your problem. If your group owns the land, the orbs MUST be group owned (deeded) also. You must have ignored all the warnings the orbs gave you about that, each and every time you activated them. The reason it works initially is because of a "convenience" that LL built in. When you first rez an orb, the orb is there and you are there. What that means is that at that moment, the sim *knows* the orb has rights, and it tries to be nice by ejecting (or TP'ing home) avatars obediently. But after you leave, the sim forgets that, and since the orb and the land are not owned by the same person (or group, in this case) it can no longer eject (or TP home). That has always been a source of confusion for customers for the 5 years I've been in business. Bottom line: The orb and the land MUST be owned by the same person or group, or it will never reliably eject or TP home avatars. ETA: After re-reading your post, you said your land and the orbs are "owned by the same group, so deeding isn't necessary". That is a contradiction. It is the process of deeding that makes the orbs become owned by the group. I think if you look at the orbs, you will find they are *owned* by yourself, and they are *set* to your land group. That is not good enough. You have to deed them, and afterwards you will notice you are no longer listed as the owner, the group is now the owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple Peccable Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Orca, Properly installed orbs are MUCH better than ban lines, 100% of the time. The key is they need to be professional quality, not something someone hacked together last light in their den, and they have to be properly installed. If everyone who now uses ban lines did this, the world would be a much better place for all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwalyphi Korpov Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple Peccable Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The problem is, Qwalyphi, is that word "deeding". It has become clear that the OP does not clearly understand what that word means, which is very common. After 5 years of customer support, I have found that very often someone says "I tried this and I tried that", but unless you witness it yourself first hand you can not count on that information being reliable. Otherwise you would be led on wild goose chases most of the time while troubleshooting. In a case like this in-world, I would have the customer TP me. And even though they *said* everything was deeded, 100% of the time I would find that either the land or the orb(s) were not deeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwalyphi Korpov Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple Peccable Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Rather than relying on terminology, I would rather have katya perform these exact steps: Open the "About Land" window and tell me what screen shows as the parcel's "Owner". Please ignore the group below, all I want to know is what it shows for owner. If the owner shows your name, the land is not deeded. If the owner shows your group name, then the land is deeded. Now right click the orb and choose Edit. Let me know what it shows for "Owner" (again, ignore the group field below the owner). If the owner shows your name, the orb is not deeded. If the owner shows the group name, then the orb is deeded. With that information, a determination can be made as to whether or not that is the problem without having to rely on terminology. But it is still the same bottom line: The owner of the land and the owner of the orb must match *exactly* in order to achieve reliable ejections and TP's home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katya Qork Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 Ok, a few issues here ... Firstly, it wasn't my intention to bash any products, and maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the products in question Secondly, my terminology: When I say the land is "deeded" - I mean that I own all of the parcels in question, and in "parcel details" have set the group to my land group, checked "allow deed to group", and then the "deed" button. When I look at parcel details it says "(group owned)". When I say the orbs are deeded - I mean that the orbs are owned by me, the group is set to the exact same group as the land, and I have edited these, clicked "share", and then "deed". The owner shows as the same group that the land is deeded to. Let me stress again that they did initially work *without* deeding, and that they do "not" need to be deeded in order to function if the owners and groups are exactly the same. Let me also stress again that both products have worked whether deeded or not, and have failed whether deed or not. As of this moment, I have reinstalled, and so far have only one that sometimes works, and sometimes just sends an eject message (but doesn't eject). None of these are deeded btw. P.S. I don't know if this is related, but I also have 2 different types of online indicator that have suddenly stopped working because they can no longer obtain the UUID of avatars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillon Levenque Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Orca Flotta wrote: And again the most important question should be WHY??? Why does anyone want to spend money on protecting "their" land ... and from what? Orbs are focking annoying. Because, intelligently used, orbs are a bazillion times better than ban lines. I have an orb with a 10m range that includes my bed, the only thing on my property that can be used for something I'd just as soon not log in and find happening. (My login point is in my bedroom). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwalyphi Korpov Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orca Flotta Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Because, intelligently used, orbs are a bazillion times better than ban lines. I have an orb with a 10m range that includes my bed, the only thing on my property that can be used for something I'd just as soon not log in and find happening. (My login point is in my bedroom). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you, Dillon, I get the picture :smileywink: That's good and maybe even wise use of orb. And as Triple and you have pointed out orbs are thousand times better than banlines. Still I don't see the need for any sort of security. My land is open, it must be since I have a public marina there and my café. My sexbed I keep mobile, in an airship which I rezz somewhere else if and when needed. Out of sight, out of mind, ya know? I know most people are more homely and cocooning in but then, what do they care about their "private" stuff once they are logged off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Orca Flotta wrote: Thank you, Dillon, I get the picture :smileywink: That's good and maybe even wise use of orb. And as Triple and you have pointed out orbs are thousand times better than banlines. Still I don't see the need for any sort of security. My land is open, it must be since I have a public marina there and my café. My sexbed I keep mobile, in an airship which I rezz somewhere else if and when needed. Out of sight, out of mind, ya know? I know most people are more homely and cocooning in but then, what do they care about their "private" stuff once they are logged off? Your preferences are not a template that everyone should have. For instance, not everyone wants to have their usable stuff mobile, and not everyone is happy with other people using their stuff. As someone said, not everyone wants to log in to find other people using their animated bed. The idea of, 'if you want to use a sexbed, buy one or find a freebie', is perfectly acceptable to all. You are more than welcome to operate the way you do but don't imagine that other people ought to operate the same way. So security devices are a big positive and not in any way a negative - unless the device is set to remove people instantly, without warning. They should never be set to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katya Qork Posted July 21, 2012 Author Share Posted July 21, 2012 Hi Qwalphi, when I started playing with the Hippo orbs after my first problems (initially deeded), I discovered that they would eject without being deeded, and reinstalled them that way - but after performing your tests for myself, it seems you are indeed correct about the behaviour. I've since (re)deeded them, and they all seem to be working consistently. Thanks for your help, Kat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwalyphi Korpov Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple Peccable Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Yes, thanks Qual. I guess I don't know how to communicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucretia Brandenburg Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Personally, I do not like ban lines or security devices. I have been in sims that are heavily advertised as nice places to visit and invite people to wander and explore and then kablooey! a security orb tells me I have to leave. I advise people to set the security on their sex beds, rugs, pianos, refrigerators and all if they don't want strangers to use them but in general, I see no harm in people out exploring. Now, if it's a squatter who just wants to pretend the place is their's to impress a date or doesn't want to spend for a hotel room or whatever, that's obnoxious, and setting the sex toys and furniture and all to owner or group only can be a fun way to frustrate that. I think land owners who rent and allow ban lines or security devices can lose a lot of potential renters, it sends what is to me, a distinctly unfriendly and unneighborly message. On the other hand, rude people who show up while out exploring, who do not respond to open chat or IMs at all, or respond in a sarcastic, obnoxious manner I boot and ban on the assumption that they are likely up to no good. As an estate manager for a gay owned estate, I tend to look at strangers as potential griefers first and friendly explorers secondly, so manners count a lot. A friend of mine had a woman pop into his living room quite frequently, never when he was home. One day she did pop in while he was there and they got to chatting and she said she liked to come there and look at the pictures he had on the walls, and his collection of pets, and they had a nice chat, no harm, no foul. If you're not at home, so what if there's some stranger in your house? Its not as if they can steal or vandalize the place (the latter assuming you've set your object entry and object creation, and running script settings correctly in About Land to prevent that). And if you are home and they're obnoxious or rude, they can be booted. To boot strangers immediately is a great way to not make new friends, or get new customers or patrons. It depends on how one wants to live their Second Life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Janus Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Legalised griefing tools which should be banned. Theyre an inconvenience to sl explorers who arent doing anything wrong...if I was in a sandbox and I was boosted across sl i 'd ar the culprit -what makes these stupid and ppointless gadgets any different ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 They are stupid and pointless, but they have the benefit of somewhat reducing the use of the even stupider and more pointless parcel access restrictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillon Levenque Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Maelstrom Janus wrote: Legalised griefing tools which should be banned. Theyre an inconvenience to sl explorers who arent doing anything wrong...if I was in a sandbox and I was boosted across sl i 'd ar the culprit -what makes these stupid and ppointless gadgets any different ?? They are neither stupid nor pointless, your personal opinion notwithstanding. My orb has a 10m range (spherical, diameter) and is mounted in the ceiling of my house about 3 meters over the center of my bed. Thus anyone who attempts to spend time in the bed (and, admittedly, stand on the roof directly above it) gets a message telling them they are in a secure area and need to leave within the next 10 seconds. Standing up takes them out of the secured area. Because of this I can log in anytime without the necessity of negotiating with someone having it off in my room before I can finish reading notices. The rest of my house, including the entire ground floor and the deck and chairs on the second floor are completely available, as is my entire yard. I pay the tier. When you want to pay my tier you can tell me what to do on the property. Until then, you cannot. The fact that something can be used as a griefing tool does not mean it should be banned. A person can drive around in a vehicle pushing and otherwise annoying people—should vehicles be banned from SL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Qie Niangao wrote: They are stupid and pointless, Security devices are neither stupid nor pointless. I doesn't matter whether or not some people think that it's fine for people to wander around other people's property when the owner is offline, or that security devices need only cover certain parts of a property. The only thing that matters is what the owner thinks. And, if the owner doesn't want people on the propertry, preventing it is neither stupid nor pointless. The point of it is that the owner wants it that way, so it's not pointless. It's not stupid because it's a sensible way to fulfil the owner's requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now