Jump to content

Disabling script ejection on mainland above the banline zone.


Extrude Ragu
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3013 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Extrude Ragu wrote:

Second life gives users the ability to build at any height and I am fine with that, you are missing the point;

 

People should not be allowed to automatically and instantly eject people for flying around in the mainland! It spoils the experience, in my opinion, why make the mainland a connected land when traversing it is like a minefield? I am of the opinion that work should be put in to prevent people abusing the mainland for what it's not, and move these skybox owners who demand privacy to private sims, the mainland was not built with the idea that skybox owners would prevent people from traversing and that the ground would be left barron and bare. The mainland was built with community in mind and I personally think that work should be put in to restore that original idea.

I am, and this is my strongest opinion, that will definately hit a few people hard, of the opinion that skybox owners who want security devices and for nobody to ever come near their land, be forced to be moved to private sims, where nobody will ever come near their land (sky)

 

I think the mainland should not be treated like a wild west, it should be a pleasant place to explore, a community. Griefers are the minority, not the majority.  I think if you want the right to insta-eject people with no warning, you should be moved to somewhere where that does not interfere with my right to explore and be involved in the community.

What makes you so privileged just because you are flying?

What about me on my land vehicles.

I should be able to drive my all terrain vehicle anywhere I want.

Oh, and my bulldozer.  What gives any one the right to stop me from driving it through any home I want to?

Or perhaps, one of AnnMarie's Trojan Horses.  If I want to leave one in your front yard, why shouldn't I?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


Maelstrom Janus wrote:

Rubbish - security devices are griefing weapons ...by your reckoning if a griefer gave you a ten second warning before flipping you half way across sl he'd be fine....

I bet we'd soon hear the moans pouring in from you if someone started setting up banning orbs and lines around your property..
.

Security devices are security devices and not weapons of any kind. They are used to prevent people from going into private areas.

If all the parcels around my land set up ban lines, then yes I'd moan. I believe that LL would act on it too. A land owner has a right to go to his/her land on the ground.

You obviously dislike them enormously, presumably because they occasionally stop you in your tracks, or because you think you have a right to go wherever you want to go, but you don't have a right to go wherever you want to go and, as long as those that would send you Home give you fair warning, you have no cause for complaint whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


as long as those that would send you Home give you fair warning, you have no cause for complaint whatsoever.

But they DON'T give you fair warning, that is my issue here, they DON'T. 0 Second Warning Auto-Eject scripts are a thing that exist and cause grief and are actively used, if you have taken the time to explore the mainland for more than 10 minutes I gauruntee you you will be very, very aware of this.

 


Phil Deakins wrote:


If all the parcels around my land set up ban lines, then yes I'd moan. I believe that LL would act on it too. A land owner has a right to go to his/her land on the ground.

>>>Then you should be moaning right now, because everyone around you has the right to set up a banline, it could happen to you at any second, and LL would NOT act on it, because they have made it so that people are allowed to do something, that takes away your rights, and I think it is wrong.<<<

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Extrude Ragu wrote:

 


What makes you so privileged just because you are flying?


The linden labs parcel banlines only extend up to 100M above the ground because the lindens clearly wanted people to be able to explore, that is how I see it. They made banlines visible so that people knew where not to go. That is why I feel I should be priveleged about flying, and security orbs are used as a way to take away that privelege by not warning me, and stopping me from flying in places I should be allowed to fly.

The lindens gave people the power to use scripts to eject people to detect and remove griefers remotely, but I do not feel the lindens gave people the power to use scripts to eject people just because they flew over their home. If the lindens had thought that people should not be allowed to fly over their homes, banlines would have extended up all 4000m, but instead the lindens restricted it to 100.

 

That is why I feel I should be priveledged as a flyer, and I'm not talking airvehicles but the same should apply to airvehicles too as it is just another way of transportation.

 

On the ground in SecondLife is clearly treated as a different manner, vehicles and people should in my opinion have clear ways to identify where they can and can't go. Currently it is a minefield and totally discourages community as you are scared away from exploring and meeting new people. There are no walkways between homes, it becomes like a 'great wall', except, there is no wall. You can't see it. There's no warning. It is a scary minefield. Dare you to explore second life and risk getting sent thousands of miles back to your home just for stepping into invisible zero second warning auto-eject territory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Extrude Ragu wrote:

as long as those that would send you Home give you fair warning, you have no cause for complaint whatsoever.

But they DON'T give you fair warning, that is my issue here, they DON'T. 0 Second Warning Auto-Eject scripts are a thing that exist and cause grief and are actively used, if you have taken the time to explore the mainland for more than 10 minutes I gauruntee you you will be very, very aware of this. 

Yes, I know that and I already said that zero warning is really bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:



 

If all the parcels around my land set up ban lines, then yes I'd moan. I believe that LL would act on it too. A land owner has a right to go to his/her land on the ground.

 

Sorry Phil, but I don't read that right anywhere.

Unless the ban lines stopped you from TPing to your land, you still would have access to it.  If they stoped that, then you LL would have a problem they needed to fix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Extrude Ragu wrote:

Second life gives users the ability to build at any height and I am fine with that, you are missing the point;

 

People should not be allowed to automatically and instantly eject people for flying around in the mainland! It spoils the experience, in my opinion, why make the mainland a connected land when traversing it is like a minefield? I am of the opinion that work should be put in to prevent people abusing the mainland for what it's not, and move these skybox owners who demand privacy to private sims, the mainland was not built with the idea that skybox owners would prevent people from traversing and that the ground would be left barron and bare. The mainland was built with community in mind and I personally think that work should be put in to restore that original idea.

I am, and this is my strongest opinion, that will definately hit a few people hard, of the opinion that skybox owners who want security devices and for nobody to ever come near their land, be forced to be moved to private sims, where nobody will ever come near their land (sky)

 

I think the mainland should not be treated like a wild west, it should be a pleasant place to explore, a community. Griefers are the minority, not the majority.  I think if you want the right to insta-eject people with no warning, you should be moved to somewhere where that does not interfere with my right to explore and be involved in the community.

You are missing the point and have obviously not read the Official Mainland Policy, the TOS or Community standards where NO WHERE does it state or even HINT at your assumptions. 

In fact mainland and sky boxes existed way before private islands did.  LL has always given landowners the absolute right to allow or not allow people on their property and the airspace above it.  If they intended anything else they would have set it up so that above a certain point land management tools would not work, and you couldn't restrict people from running scripts and rezzing things up there.

If you have a "right to explore and experience community", prove it by putting a link to an official LL document that gives you the right.  You can't because it doesn't exist.  You have no right to explore anyplace in SL except for public LL owned land, your own land or land a private land owner gives you the privilege to explore.

Maybe you want to experience a community 24/7 but not everyone does. When I want to, I go places where people gather or invite people to my home to socialize.  But my home and its land is private, and is only for myself, my partner, and friends we choose to give access privileges to or invite there.   We do allow flyovers and boaters to pass through our water as a courtesy, but only as long as they don't stop or cause us problems or invade our privacy.

If you want community buy enough land and start one or buy land on a private estate that promotes community and does not allow ban lines or security orbs.  There are plenty of estates like that.  That is what the Lindens intended not to force everyone on the mainland to participate in one big community.

I've always found that those that think they have a RIGHT to go where they want either on land, on water or in the air, are also the people that don't respect other people and their right to privacy, which btw IS a RIGHT granted under the TOS by granting landowners the right to restrict access to their land as they see fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Extrude Ragu wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:


Extrude Ragu wrote:

 


What makes you so privileged just because you are flying?


The linden labs parcel banlines only extend up to 100M above the ground because the lindens clearly wanted people to be able to explore, that is how I see it. They made banlines visible so that people knew where not to go. That is why I feel I should be priveleged about flying, and security orbs are used as a way to take away that privelege by not warning me, and stopping me from flying in places I should be allowed to fly.

The lindens gave people the power to use scripts to eject people to detect and remove griefers remotely, but I do not feel the lindens gave people the power to use scripts to eject people just because they flew over their home. If the lindens had thought that people should not be allowed to fly over their homes, banlines would have extended up all 4000m, but instead the lindens restricted it to 100.

 

That is why I feel I should be priveledged as a flyer, and I'm not talking airvehicles but the same should apply to airvehicles too as it is just another way of transportation.

 

On the ground in SecondLife is clearly treated as a different manner, vehicles and people should in my opinion have clear ways to identify where they can and can't go. Currently it is a minefield and totally discourages community as you are scared away from exploring and meeting new people. There are no walkways between homes, it becomes like a 'great wall', except, there is no wall. You can't see it. There's no warning. It is a scary minefield. Dare you to explore second life and risk getting sent thousands of miles back to your home just for stepping into invisible zero second warning auto-eject territory?

So what you are telling me is that LL is playing favoritism, flying is OK but riding a ground vehicle is not.

LL has been aware of the security orbs for as long as they have been doing ban lines also.

In fact, they are the ones who gave us:

llEjectFromLand

and

llTeleportAgentHome

and

llAddToLandBanList

and if I choose to add any one flying over my land to that Ban list then:

Maximum "NO ENTRY" ban line height: .........Only the option 'Banned Residents' (named) has a 5020 meter ban line high, which is visible up to a high of 800 meter above the terrain mesh (link) happens.

 

But to digress a little, I also personally do not like security orbs with short fuses.  I fly also and it irks me also.  But I don't define it as "Griefing."  They may cause me grief when I am flying but there are other things in Second Life I may also not be allowed to do.  A land owner can chose to ban Nudity on their parcel.  At any height.  Their land, their rules. 

It's peoples sense of entitlement, the I should be able to do what ever I want attitude wherever I want that is wrong.  No, you are not entitled to that in Second Life.  Neither am I. 

The horse manure that it 'hurts the community' is just that.  Horse manure.  This issue only effects a niche group in SL, the flying community.

 

eta:shpelling

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Pamela Galli wrote:

I was under the impression that ejection without a warning of say, 10 secs or so, was against TOS and AR-able.

I've been hearing comments like this for ages but have never read anything in the TOS, CS, etc, about it nor has anyone ever shown me anything.

Not saying it isn't there, but if it is I'd sure love someone to show me.

I'm guessing it extends from the following which was posted YEARS ago by Lee Linden.


Lee Linden wrote:

We know there's a bit of a gap between the current built-in security tools, and people's desires to be alone on their property. While we allow residents to supplement their land security tools with scripts, it's important not to violate other people's rights in the process.

An acceptable security script should remove an offender from the land, nothing more. Ideally, this should involve two calls: llUnSit and llEjectFromLand. More details on these functions here:

These two calls will eject someone driving a vehicle with no chance for them to recover it, so it's important to provide both a warning and a reasonable delay for someone "just passing through", especially if they're not a repeat offender.

llPushObject should not be used in a security script; it's totally unnecessary. llTeleportAgentHome is also a bit unfair to people attempting to fly to another location, and should also not be used. Both these functions have the potential to disconnect someone from Second Life, which is considered a disruptive action.

In my opinion, the ideal security script would have the following features:

1) Scan in intervals greater than 1.0 second to reduce server load.

2) Maintain a list of recently ejected residents, as well as a "blacklist" of names forbidden by the owner.

3) After a new avatar (not recently ejected or blacklisted) enters, wait a few seconds, then warn the user via IM (one time only) that they're on private land and should leave.

4) Give the avatar at least 10 seconds to leave for this first occasion.

5) If the avatar doesn't leave, IM them again, then llUnSit and llEjectFromLand.

6) Add the avatar to the "recently ejected" list. If they return, they receive a shorter delay before being removed.

7) Blacklisted avatars receive a short delay and IM warning before being ejected and added to the "recently ejected" list. Blacklisted avatars on the "recently ejected" list can be immediately removed.

That's a wish list, not a list of requirements. If someone makes that security script, I'll be sure to recommend it!

I cannot find a link to the original post as it seems to be unavailable.  However, here are three links to posts by three different people who all quote the same thing.  Also, you can see that security orbs have been quite the annoyance for a long time.  This is an old arguement.

http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/327/6b/289205/1.html

http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/108/db/104716/2.html

http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/108/bd/119390/8.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Hugsy Penguin wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:


Pamela Galli wrote:

I was under the impression that ejection without a warning of say, 10 secs or so, was against TOS and AR-able.

I've been hearing comments like this for ages but have never read anything in the TOS, CS, etc, about it nor has anyone ever shown me anything.

Not saying it isn't there, but if it is I'd sure love someone to show me.

I'm guessing it extends from the following which was posted YEARS ago by Lee Linden.

Lee Linden wrote:

We know there's a bit of a gap between the current built-in security tools, and people's desires to be alone on their property. While we allow residents to supplement their land security tools with scripts, it's important not to violate other people's rights in the process.

An acceptable security script should remove an offender from the land, nothing more. Ideally, this should involve two calls: llUnSit and llEjectFromLand. More details on these functions here:

These two calls will eject someone driving a vehicle with no chance for them to recover it, so it's important to provide both a warning and a reasonable delay for someone "just passing through", especially if they're not a repeat offender.

llPushObject should not be used in a security script; it's totally unnecessary. llTeleportAgentHome is also a bit unfair to people attempting to fly to another location, and should also not be used. Both these functions have the potential to disconnect someone from Second Life, which is considered a disruptive action.

In my opinion, the ideal security script would have the following features:

1) Scan in intervals greater than 1.0 second to reduce server load.

2) Maintain a list of recently ejected residents, as well as a "blacklist" of names forbidden by the owner.

3) After a new avatar (not recently ejected or blacklisted) enters, wait a few seconds, then warn the user via IM (one time only) that they're on private land and should leave.

4) Give the avatar at least 10 seconds to leave for this first occasion.

5) If the avatar doesn't leave, IM them again, then llUnSit and llEjectFromLand.

6) Add the avatar to the "recently ejected" list. If they return, they receive a shorter delay before being removed.

7) Blacklisted avatars receive a short delay and IM warning before being ejected and added to the "recently ejected" list. Blacklisted avatars on the "recently ejected" list can be immediately removed.

That's a wish list, not a list of requirements. If someone makes that security script, I'll be sure to recommend it!

I cannot find a link to the original post as it seems to be unavailable.  However, here are three links to posts by three different people who all quote the same thing.  Also, you can see that security orbs have been quite the annoyance for a long time.  This is an old arguement.


TYVM

That would also explain the origin of the 10 second timers.

There may be some orbs out there that eject on contact, but personally I've never encountered one set under 10 seconds.

On my own parcel I've set my orbs to 60 seconds and the range is limited to my sky home.  To set it off you'd just about have to be attempting to land on my sky box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I both own land and use vehicles.  The problem isn't mean nasty land owners who have the "audacity" to want to control access to their land.  Nor is the problem dirty rotten vehicle owners who have the "audacity" to fly/drive/sail through resident owned land.

The problem is a lack of information for the vehicle user.  There's no way to see ban lines until you're right on top of them and then it's too late.  There's no way at all to detect security scripts.  A ban line hud will certainly help but isn't the be-all-end-all solution.

What would be great but will probably never happen is for Linden Lab to revamp mainland privacy in way that allows land owners to setup public and private zones on their land.  Then have the private areas shown on the minimap (and perhaps even the main map).  Vehicle users/explorers would be able to see and avoid the private areas before they get there.  A win-win situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To those that may take this as gospel, this is not official, only a former Linden's opinion, clearly labeled as such.  As a courtesy it is nice to give warning before ejecting anyone, but it is not required.

You're right Hugsby,  The pro's and con's of security orbs and banlines have been argued between those who think that they have a right to go anywhere and landowners that do have, and have always had, the absolute right to restrict access to their property for years.  Almost since the beginning of SL.

The Linden's have weighed in the side of landowners wishing to restrict access in anyway they choose by way of what is written in the official TOS, Mainland Policy and Community Standards and giving them the tools to do it.  If they didn't agree with that they've had plenty of opportunity to change the official documents to reflect that and change the way the land management tools and scripts work.

LL's policy is long standing and not apt to change,  So people that disagree and continually bring up false arguments to prove their point are beating a dead horse.  They are of course entitled to their opinion that banlines and security orbs are bad, but it has no more weight than anyone else's opinion, nor does it change anything.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Extrude Ragu wrote:

 

Pamela,
You are right, private land is private
land.
I would never intrude on someones property like that. A locked door is a locked door and it's inexcusable to break through it. But the mainland is a different nature, it was designed to be explored.
There are
often no visual cues, and as you said, the Lindens don't respond to AR's.
 

But, you are also wrong, Private land is not private land, until it is clearly marked as so, and also, private land is
Land
, not Private
Air.
For example, when I brought my house in the real world, I didn't buy the right to stop harry in his piper club from flying over, or John in his Jet.

When I brought my home in the real world I also didn't buy the right to vaporize my neighbour when he stepped onto my drive with no warning, or to detain some guy who tripped and stepped foot in my drive, and because he so much as touched my land, drive him all the way back to his home in Alaska. You know? It's rediculous that there is no warning, and that you are teleported so far away. It is nasty and really sets a bad tone in second life.

When you buy a house in the middle of a street you should expect people to walk past, this is what mainland owners seem to forget, they brought a parcel to develop on, where they have the right to ask people to leave, but they don't have the right to disturb everyone around them unnessacarily just for passing by, they should get off their high horse.

Umm. I nolded your words. Mainland was designed for resident to create, buy land and design how they want. Just because it's mainland gives you now right to make any rules on what other people pay for. You are just another one of theose "I am entitled to what everyone pays ofr, because i said." What a false sense of entitlment. Maybe you should think about how much money sink their RL money into the places that make up Mainland and calm down ab bit and get off your high horse with your "You pay I plat" Attitude.

 

EDIT: Wow, i didn't even notice until today what a botched up paragraph i wrote. i can barely read it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have scanned the topic; will read later in entirety.

But this has come up countless times in the history of the forums so I pretty much know the drill and the range of projected/expected responses.

Here is mine:

I keep my land open to the public at ground level. After some time in SL I am very lucky to have ocean front and road side properties. I know from experience it's a severe 'drag' to be knocked out of your car or boat when running into a property in such places, which has an orb or ban line active.

However, it's still true that I am paying 'out the nose' for those properties, which I also spend time maintaining. So Linden Lab gives me (and every 'land owner') the right within Second Life to decide who can visit and who can not. If I wanted to install an orb or ban line around those properties, I could. 

I don't choose to. I choose to keep them open to visitors because that's how I'd like to be treated and how I do ilke to be treated - Second Life's joy is visiting other parcels.

However that privilege is not expected when it comes to going inside someone's home, or snooping around their skybox.

I keep more private stuff (nothing very interesting, trust me) way up in the sky. No one has a legitimate reason in my opinion, to be snooping around or 'exploring' up there. And that is where I go to be alone and to build or whatever I want to do in Second Life. Even if alone on my land I realize someone could drop in (which is fine) at ground level while I am puttering around putting in a new 'tree' or whatever. So I go up into the sky when I want uninterrupted 'me' time.

Not that I had to explain that to anyone, because I pretty much can do what I want on my own 'land' in SL, within SL's TOS. But, that's my philosophy of use and my practical expression when in Second Life.

If I see someone in my land I normally teleport away unless very tired and just about done with whatever I was doing there, for example. Because I want them to have that feeling that is 'their' land for that moment. (I do stop short of it becoming abusive, but for the most part I haven't encountered that.)

I'm also a bit shy 'in person' even in SL and tend to flit away after a few cursory words.  ;) So I cut to that part quicker if we've never met, and I let others enjoy without my avatar hanging around. :) It makes me happy they are enjoying the 'space.' The way my sims are decorated is a form of artistic expression (I don't know how others experience their public sims but that's how I experience theirs as well) and one of SL's coolest aspects in my opinion is that others can share in that in a 3D way.

OK, long winded enough.

tl;dr version:

No one has a 'right' to explore someone else's paid for 'land' - if they allow the public in part of it be happy for that, don't abuse the privilege, don't go where it's forbidden to go, and you will be invited back...

Land owners...put your sky boxes and platforms high enough that planes won't run into your orb if you have one...if possible. If not, then yes it's  your right to do so. 

Plane pilots...don't fly above 1000 meters and you USUALLY will not have a problem.

(edited to fix a minor typo)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Extrude Ragu wrote:

 

private land is
Land
, not Private
Air.
For example, when I brought my house in the real world, I didn't buy the right to stop harry in his piper club from flying over, or John in his Jet.

When I brought my home in the real world I also didn't buy the right to vaporize my neighbour when he stepped onto my drive with no warning, .

part 1: Yes it's their air space too. They own everything on, under and above that parcel.

part 2: People make a mistake in my opinion, in the forums, making too many 'real life' analogies. Part of the wonder of a virtual world is that it is pioneer territory. 

And part of the joy is that the TOS enables you to do exactly that ('vaporize') if someone steps on your virtual land - if you want to look at it that way.  ;)  Did you ever notice the 'heart' icon? Do you know what it means?

ETA and actually in some places you do have a legal right in real life to shoot a trespasser; but that's a whoooole controversy I am not willing to get into here (or anywhere online actually. Useless/fruitless expenditure of energy.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Extrude Ragu wrote:

When you buy a house in the middle of a street you should expect people to walk past, this is what mainland owners seem to forget, they brought a parcel to develop on, where they have the right to ask people to leave, but they don't have the right to disturb everyone around them unnessacarily just for passing by, they should get off their high horse.

Well, Second Life was not really designed with 'sidewalks' or throughways, unless you count Linden roads and water ways and Linden owned land. Maybe you'd enjoy places like Blake Sea (Amethyst had a good suggestion about only flying over such places) or some of the Linden-planned communities such as Shermerville or the former teen grid (not sure if it has a name now) or - gosh I haven't been there in so long - what is the other one?? (sigh)

And again to reply to your real life analogy (which, as with most such, doesn't uniformly apply to Second Life) not all real life communities like people ambling through either and not all streets have a public sidewalk in them. There are even gated communities and such in real life, or if you look like you don't "fit in" (for any reason) you could have some curtains twitching at you or phone calls made. So it isn't quite so bucolic in real life in that way either, in my opinion/from my experience.

Second Life apparently had a huge 'boom' and land was added such that in many places there is no road, sidewalk, water way etc., for people to 'pass through' and in some places the parcel line and road overlap a bit. That's when you can get knocked out of your vehicle on a public road, if one of those people has added a ban line. Or if their orb doesn't fit their parcel perfectly, or isn't scripted perfectly, the orb range extends into the road - I have run into both situations.

Of course it's nicer when people are friendlier. Unfortunately not everyone is - and with some it's because of very negative experiences with griefers, nosey parkers, or even, people living in their house full time. I know it had to be infuriating to have your blissful immersive experience interrupted but perhaps ask some here the reasons they have used a ban line or an orb even temporarily in the past and you could see another side of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

To those that may take this as gospel, this is not official, only a former Linden's opinion, clearly labeled as such.  As a courtesy it is nice to give warning before ejecting anyone, but it is not required.

Not official and very old but it's still generally good advice.


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

You're right Hugsby,  The pro's and con's of security orbs and banlines have been argued between those who think that they have a
right
to go anywhere and landowners that do have, and have always had, the absolute right to restrict access to their property for years.  Almost since the beginning of SL.

Unfortunately there are vehicle users (and "on foot" explorers) who think it's their right to go anywhere. On the other hand, I'm sure there are many of us who realize that it's a privilege granted by the land owners.


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

The Linden's have weighed in the side of landowners wishing to restrict access in anyway they choose by way of what is written in the official TOS, Mainland Policy and Community Standards and giving them the tools to do it.  If they didn't agree with that they've had plenty of opportunity to change the official documents to reflect that and change the way the land management tools and scripts work.

The Lab certainly gives the ultimate right to control access to the land owner. The Lab is also very much aware of the long history of vehicle use on the grid. They have made it clear that vehicle use on resident owned mainland is not an automatic TOS violation. In fact the Lab facilitates this. Certain vehicles can still be used on land even when it's set to no build, no script, and no object entry. This is not a bug. It's designed that way to allow vehicle users to traverse the land.


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

LL's policy is long standing and not apt to change,  So people that disagree and continually bring up false arguments to prove their point are beating a dead horse.  They are of course entitled to their opinion that banlines and security orbs are bad, but it has no more weight than anyone else's opinion, nor does it change anything.

 

 Yep.  Except for making it easier for people to see where the private area are, the Lab is pretty much doing it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:



 

If all the parcels around my land set up ban lines, then yes I'd moan. I believe that LL would act on it too. A land owner has a right to go to his/her land on the ground.

 

Sorry Phil, but I don't read that right anywhere.

Unless the ban lines stopped you from TPing to your land, you still would have access to it.  If they stoped that, then you LL would have a problem they needed to fix.

You're probably right. It's something that I picked up by word of mouth years ago, and it may have been misinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I explore mainland a lot, when I'm not doing other things. It's rare for me to encounter an orb that ejects that quickly. I don't think you'll find many who believe no warning is a smart move. There used to be a LOT more of those around too, there aren't nearly as many.

I don't often wander onto others' mainland areas unless I can specifically tell they allow. Rather than the opposite of believing I can unless they say I can't. That's always been how i handle mainland.

That said, there are PLENTY of areas on mainland we can safely explore without any problems at all. Any public area is fair use-within TOS of course. You can safely fly, drive, walk, skate, skip hop and jump, crawl on your hands and knees, walk like a crab, ride a horse, a dragon, a frog...I could go on for ages...but you get the point. Public areas allow this and there's actually a lot more of them than people think. I know, because I've explored, LOTS. I don't just assume. I also know because I pay those areas more attention than I do parcels owned by others on mainland...because of my previosly stated philosophy.

I understand parts of the complaints...others are rubbish. Warnings should be given, I agree. That said, ll doesn't tell anyone they have to, so, there's not much you can do, other than avoid them. I have as someone else pointed out run into people who didn't realize their warning was non-existent or really short. They can be pretty nice people when you're nice in your approach. I find that approaching with aggressive behavior, or "I want to...you can't stop me....I am entitled...you have no right.." sort of things, you're not going to get anywhere. Reasonably so, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

Perrie Juran wrote:

Phil Deakins wrote:

If all the parcels around my land set up ban lines, then yes I'd moan. I believe that LL would act on it too. A land owner has a right to go to his/her land on the ground.

Sorry Phil, but I don't read that right anywhere.

Unless the ban lines stopped you from TPing to your land, you still would have access to it.  If they stoped that, then you LL would have a problem they needed to fix.

You're probably right. It's something that I picked up by word of mouth years ago, and it may have been misinformation.

I don't recall this applying to ban lines, but long ago Governance was said to have a policy of requiring that built barriers not completely enclose a parcel. This was used by adfarmers to file Abuse Reports against the landowners they were extorting, if those landowners built up around the microparcels completely obscuring the ads from all sides.  On the other hand, that policy did not appear to be uniformly enforced, so I'm not sure it ever existed, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That might be where it came from then.

Years ago I had an L shaped piece of land that had a 32m parcel cut out of the inner corner, so that my parcel surrounded it on all 4 sides. For a long time nothing was done with the 32m, but then a verticle set of 3 ads were placed on it. So I built walls around the ads, the ads were moved higher, and I built higher - like a rectangular chimney. Eventually the owner IMed me about it. He was pleasant enough and I told him I was building a castle and he said that it's a very nice castle lol. I wasn't of course. All the time I had it in mind that, if he ARed my walls, LL may make me leave a way onto his land on the ground but nothing ever happened. He wasn't trying to sell the 32m. He really was just trying to display ads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As expected ban lines are okay until they inconvenience you - so what's the rule 'banlines fine until they upset PhilDeakins' - just as I expected...So if 4 different people surround you and use ban lines which one isnt going to have the right to put up the ban lines you think are fine everywhere else....

 

the word hypocrite comes to mind.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The situation is quite simple ...security provided by the lab is fine without the need for a mass of extra security orbs ban lines and all the rest..... Id love to know how much of a drain ban lines are on sl resources and how many people a day are inconvenienced, crashed out, frozen etc.....everyone who is in favour of ban lines should simply be surrounded by four walls of the dratted things as they clearly love 'em so much and obviously dont enjoy the exploration aspect of sl that much anyway....

 

Perhaps they could create a continent called Alcatraz and allow the banline lovers to migrate there...... everyone encased in their own pulsing electronic hazard ribbons...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Maelstrom Janus wrote:

As expected ban lines are okay until they inconvenience you - so what's the rule 'banlines fine until they upset PhilDeakins' - just as I expected...So if 4 different people surround you and use ban lines which one isnt going to have the right to put up the ban lines you think are fine everywhere else....

 

the word hypocrite comes to mind.....

You can call me what you want but I've never been in the situation where ban lines surrounded my land. have you? I don't know anyone who has. I take your point about which neighbour should remove their ban lines. Nevertheless, I would moan if I were surrounded IF my plot was quite small - I should have said that before. And if none of the neighours would remove them, and if LL wouldn't do anything, I'd move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3013 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...