Ban Lines

[Paul Hexem]

750 meters below their sky box, she put up ban lines.

At the end of a runway of an airport between her and the Blake Sea.

The reason: "I don't want people in my sky box."

Worse, the ban lines are invisible. Even with the option to see ban lines turned on, because these are over a sim border, they simply don't show up.

Fly up over them and land on the sky box, and you're fine.

I'm not sure if this is an example of LL screwing up, or the land owner being stupid.

[Hugsy Penguin]

The land owner is being stupid.  Turning of public access has always created ban lines to 50 meters above ground.  Perhaps someone should politely explain this to this person.

[Janelle Darkstone]

Is it out of the question to put, like, a ski jump ramp thingy at the end of the runway?

( Could solve the ban line problem as well as making air travel that much more terrifying. )

[Amethyst Jetaime]

The airport owner planned it poorly or is using unsuitable land if planes need to fly into someone else's lot to take off.  She is under no obligation to accommodate planes taking off and in fact may be using ban lines to keep them from crashing on her land or flying annoyingly low over her as well as keeping them away from her skybox, even though that may not be working.  Pilots have no inherent rights to fly where they please. 

Maybe the airport should offer to buy her property and find property as nice or nicer than she has to move to  Then again I kind of like Janelle's idea , LOL.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

The airport owner planned it poorly or is using unsuitable land if planes need to fly into someone else's lot to take off.  She is under no obligation to accommodate planes taking off and in fact may be

using ban lines to keep them from crashing on her land

or flying annoyingly low over her as well as keeping them away from her skybox, even though that may not be working.  Pilots have no inherent rights to fly where they please. 

Maybe the airport should offer to buy her property and find property as nice or nicer than she has to move to  Then again I kind of like Janelle's idea , LOL.

---

Actually what she's doing is basically guaranteeing that she'll have airplanes stuck in the ban-line wall around her property like blueberries in a muffin. If that's what she wants she's going to be spectacularly successful. If she DOESN'T want airplane wreckage near her lot, on the other hand...

[Hugsy Penguin]

The stated reason for the ban lines was:  "I don't want people in my sky box."  She didn't say anything about blocking air travel.  It's entirely possible she doesn't mind the airplanes.  Or, and I say this as both a land owner and flyer/explorer, if she doesn't like the air traffic, then, yes, it's her right to keep the ban lines.

Regardless, she thinks the ban lines are protecting her skybox.  It would be helpful if someone informed her that that's not the way they work.

[Paul Hexem]

---

Hugsy Penguin wrote:

Regardless, she thinks the ban lines are protecting her skybox.  It would be helpful if someone informed her that that's not the way they work.

---

Tried that. It made her ban me by name. She won't listen to reason.

[Paul Hexem]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

The airport owner planned it poorly or is using unsuitable land if planes need to fly into someone else's lot to take off.

---

It was discussed. The answer was, "Well, it's L$500,000 to get a 1024 plot at the water. It's L$8192 to get a plot twice as large two sims in. We're getting the one that isn't priced by a **bleep**ing retard."

[iCade]

I understand your frustration, but I understand her too. I don't think she minds the planes at all, but truly doesn't want anyone in her skybox (and doesn't listen to reason that that is not possible.)

I've been living on mainland for 3 month now. On a beautiful snowland parcel bordering a protected Linden River that lets you sail to 100s of sims. 2 of these month I have lived there residentially.....and got really damn tired of random people entering my house to practically live in it /while/ I was in the house as well. I was entirely ignored

Someone even IM'ed me asking to turn off Owner only access to my sexbed menu. I put banlines for a few days then too >.> I don't mind random people appreciating a well furnished log cabin and to spend some time in it, I even met some nice people this way but my home is NOT someone elses pleasure island or THEIR home!

Now I have my store on it and random people still come and look around (A gingerbread house with candy trees will draw some attention LOL) BUT I wish we could have banlines for a skybox too. Just yesterday I was working on a new set of Petit-Four Chairs when someone came flying up to me. It went like this:

Me: Oh hi, can I help you?
Them: I'm here for the party!
Me: ...what party?
Them: Our engagement.

He left at that point, thankfully because my fingers were hovering over the keyboard and for once in my life I was actually too stunned to come up with a witty response.

Not sure how it is with other pieces of mainland but I absolutely understand the use of banlines, a neighbour of mine put them up recently too. 

And I totally used your post to rant a little, I know, bite me pfft x3

[Tari Landar]

---

iCade wrote:

 

Now I have my store on it and random people still come and look around (A gingerbread house with candy trees will draw some attention LOL) BUT I wish we could have banlines for a skybox too.

---

That's what security is for. It can be easily handled and you can even limit it to a certain area only. Like, for instance, a skybox. With the numerous systems available, I'm quite certain just about everyone could, easily, find one that suits their needs.

I believe there are some times when banlines may be necessary(whether or not I've ever used them, lol) But sometimes I don't believe people are actually thinking when using them, I think they're just reacting to something negative and it's the first thought that pops into their head. This is probably more relevant for mainland parcels that may be near or bordering puclic parcels/sims.

Then again, I also still believe in(and abide by) "my land, my rules", so if banlines are something someone wants...have at it. Just don't be surprised when folks question the reasoning, when your solution actually creates your problem. Like in the instance gadget posted. That parcel owner is actually creating the problem she doesn't want, lol.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

The airport owner planned it poorly or is using unsuitable land if planes need to fly into someone else's lot to take off.

---

It was discussed. The answer was, "Well, it's L$500,000 to get a 1024 plot at the water. It's L$8192 to get a plot twice as large two sims in. We're getting the one that isn't priced by a **bleep**ing retard."

---

Ahhh, NOW it becomes clear. We have a conflict between a neighbor who doesn't understand ban lines and an airport administration who understand neither the importance of clearway nor having a community-relations officer without a long history of lacking interpersonal skills.

A real-world solution would be to issue a NOTAM and new approach charts to have takeoffs and landings go the opposite way on the runway and to establish a minimum altitude for the region crossing - it would be similar to a noise-abatement procedure.

A SL solution would be to raise the entire runway to just above ban-line altitude, which would give those not explicitly banned sufficient clearway and have the added advantage of driving the neighbor CRAZY. The inevitable spite fence that would follow would almost certainly be visible (she doesn't seem bright enough to figure out how to make an invisible one, and her brand of spite seems like she would want it visible anyway.)

[Czari Zenovka]

When I want privacy in my sky home I use a security orb.  The one I use has warning settings ranging from 10 seconds - 60 seconds which is what I use (the latter) when I do have it activated; that generally gives enough time for aircraft to move through the area although at 4000m in the sky I haven't seen any air traffic.  That was more of an issue back in the day when the maximum building height was a lot lower and my home was only 600m up.

I had someone wandering into my home once when I was brand new to SL and living on an estate sim.  I first greeted the person - no response as she wandered about the living room.  I asked why she was in my house - no response.  This went on for awhile until she finally left.  I was so new that I didn't know how to eject.  I talked to the estate owner the next morning and was introduced to the control panel by the front door that I wondered what it did - a built in security system (including eject/ban) for the property. :matte-motes-bashful-cute:

[Paul Hexem]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

The airport owner planned it poorly or is using unsuitable land if planes need to fly into someone else's lot to take off.

---

It was discussed. The answer was, "Well, it's L$500,000 to get a 1024 plot at the water. It's L$8192 to get a plot twice as large two sims in. We're getting the one that isn't priced by a **bleep**ing retard."

---

Ahhh, NOW it becomes clear. We have a conflict between a neighbor who doesn't understand ban lines and an airport administration who understand neither the importance of clearway nor having a community-relations officer without a long history of lacking interpersonal skills.

A real-world solution would be to issue a NOTAM and new approach charts to have takeoffs and landings go the opposite way on the runway and to establish a minimum altitude for the region crossing - it would be similar to a noise-abatement procedure.

A SL solution would be to raise the entire runway to just above ban-line altitude, which would give those not explicitly banned sufficient clearway and have the added advantage of driving the neighbor CRAZY. The inevitable spite fence that would follow would almost certainly be visible (she doesn't seem bright enough to figure out how to make an invisible one, and her brand of spite seems like she would want it visible anyway.)

---

I'd love to change traffic to go south instead of north. The problem with that is A) Now we're heading away from the Blake and further inland, into more of this no-man's land (more skyboxes and ban lines), and B) Across the street is another skybox, literally right where the glide slope would be.

It was also discussed putting a runway in the sky, but then we lose the road, and we'd have to redo the build (which was another thing discussed- going east/west instead of north/south...)

Times like this, I wish there were some sort of zoning on the mainland... Or some sort of something. As it stands, it's just ugly chaos.

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

The airport owner planned it poorly or is using unsuitable land if planes need to fly into someone else's lot to take off.  She is under no obligation to accommodate planes taking off and in fact may be using ban lines to keep them from crashing on her land or flying annoyingly low over her as well as keeping them away from her skybox, even though that may not be working.  Pilots have no inherent rights to fly where they please.

---

Depends on who was there first. If the airport existed for some time in harmony with prior builds - then the new land owner moving in may have the liberty to be a jerk - but that is not the same thing as being a jerk being acceptable conduct.

Just because one has a liberty to engage in certain anti-community conduct does not make it ok.

 

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

iCade wrote:

I understand your frustration, but I understand her too. I don't think she minds the planes at all, but truly doesn't want anyone in her skybox (and doesn't listen to reason that that is not possible.)

I've been living on mainland for 3 month now. On a beautiful snowland parcel bordering a protected Linden River that lets you sail to 100s of sims. 2 of these month I have lived there residentially.....and got really damn tired of random people entering my house to practically live in it /while/ I was in the house as well. I was entirely ignored

---

This is what security orbs are good for. Not the low end ones that often come free with prefab orbs. Get one like the Hippo brand one that you can configure to fractions of a meter.

I use it to operate only inside the bounds of my home's walls. Nobody needs to know it is even there, and I have had people stand on my lawn and chat in bliss... where I welcome them doing so. But enter my private space and its a 0-second warning teleport out. Space that is inside the walls, behind locked doors. So the only way in is to teleport or to remote sit on the furniture - and if you do those things you KNOW you are entering somebody else's home. Especially as its decorated with art I like and pictures of my avatar and some friends.

Nobody camps out in my home. I have had people try to TP in before. Even had one begin rezzing on my head by the orb zapped him before I could even render anymore than a cloud - I only know 'him' because the orb makes a log of everyone it zaps.

(A second script tells me everyone who gets within 10m of the walls. So I know who's stopping by in a general sense. I don't bother tracking anyone who vists the remainder of my home lot - most of which is a wooded hill with spots to sit and enjoy far away from my visitor scripts.)

 

Oh: and security orbs work at any height. Just be nice and limit them to INSIDE solid walls, even if transparent - so that if a flyer passes by they bump a harmless wall and can change direction rather than getting zapped.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

The airport owner planned it poorly or is using unsuitable land if planes need to fly into someone else's lot to take off.  She is under no obligation to accommodate planes taking off and in fact may be using ban lines to keep them from crashing on her land or flying annoyingly low over her as well as keeping them away from her skybox, even though that may not be working.  Pilots have no inherent rights to fly where they please.

---

Depends on who was there first. If the airport existed for some time in harmony with prior builds - then the new land owner moving in may have the liberty to be a jerk - but that is not the same thing as being a jerk being acceptable conduct.

Just because one has a liberty to engage in certain anti-community conduct does not make it ok.

 

---

It doesn't make a difference who was there first since the possibility that the land could change hands and ban line be put up should have been taken into account when the airport was planned.  As Gadget replied to my post, they made the decision to put the airport two sims away from open Linden owned land/water.  It was based on finances, which is understandable.  However they don't have the right to expect an adjoining landowner to accommodate their airport by not using ban lines if they choose to do so.

The owner says they are using ban lines to protect a skybox.  The solution would be to prove that the ban lines don't protect the skybox. Recent experience with them made me believe the claim that ban lines only go up to 50m was incorrect.  So I did some research on this and ban lines and found, contrary to what is stated in other posts here, go to the height of 4096 now, per this wiki entry.  

I don't view the use of the rights that come with land ownership as anti-community behavior or being a jerk either. She pays for the land so has the right exercise her full rights.

There is no "community" on the mainland that I ever experienced except in places where there is planned community such as Bay City or where all the landowners voluntarily agree to enter into one.  Not everyone in SL is here to be part of a "community", nor are they required to.  If someone thinks community means not using ban lines, they should have their land on a private estate that doesn't allow them or on an area of the mainland where all landowners agree voluntarily not to use them. 

This is the problem with mainland and why most of SL landowners prefer private estates.  Mainland has no covenant and that can be a blessing to the landowner but a curse to their neighbors, as illustrated by this situation.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

The owner says they are using ban lines to protect a skybox.  The solution would be to prove that the ban lines don't protect the skybox. Recent experience with them made me believe the claim that ban lines only go up to 50m was incorrect. 

So I did some research on this and ban lines and found, contrary to what is stated in other posts here, go to the height of 4096 now, per

this wiki entry.

  

---

It sounds like someone is going to need to do some careful testing and possibly edit either that Wiki entry or this one:

"Maximum "NO ENTRY" ban line height: is for all options 80 meter. 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."

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Limits

 

eta, I just noticed the entry you cited does link to the entry I cited.

[Maelstrom Janus]

Ah ban lines and security orbs - legalised griefing implements .... one of the many reasons we never see aircraft flying in sl any more.....

[Lunar Core]

---

Maelstrom Janus wrote:

Ah ban lines and security orbs - legalised griefing implements .... one of the many reasons we never see aircraft flying in sl any more.....

---

Sorry, your opinion on existing security systems and access restriction methods does not rquate out to hard facts Mr. Janus.

The correct phrasing is as follows:

"Ah ban lines and security orbs  .... one of the many reasons - in my opinion - we never see aircraft flying in sl any more....."

[Perrie Juran]

---

Maelstrom Janus wrote:

Ah ban lines and security orbs - legalised griefing implements .... one of the many reasons we never see aircraft flying in sl any more.....

---

Quit being an ostrich and maybe you'd see them.

I both fly all the time and see aircraft all the time.

I fly almost daily now.

 

[Maelstrom Janus]

Considering I spend most of my sl time 'at altitude ' and flying vehicles myself ..... and havent seen any other airborne vehicle for a good year or so....

 

By th way your facts on the ostrich are erroneous assuming you are using that old fallacy about em burying their head in the sand... so basically your facys were 100% wrong....

[Maelstrom Janus]

I never like english teachers so i wont make any exception in your case ....

[Lunar Core]

---

Maelstrom Janus wrote:

Considering I spend most of my sl time 'at altitude ' and flying vehicles myself ..... and havent seen any other airborne vehicle for a good year or so....

 

By th way your facts on the ostrich are erroneous assuming you are using that old fallacy about em burying their head in the sand... so basically your facys were 100% wrong....

---

Considering the both of you are using anecdotal evidence (personal experience) to support your opinions, neither of you are making factual statements regarding Second Life air travel. You are relating your personal experiences.

Treating these experiences as if they define the rest of the world damages your credibility.

[Perrie Juran]

 

---

Maelstrom Janus wrote:

By th way your facts on the ostrich are erroneous assuming you are using that old fallacy about em burying their head in the sand... so basically your facys were 100% wrong....

---

If you'd like I could provide you links to many, many more.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Lunar Core wrote:

---

Maelstrom Janus wrote:

Considering I spend most of my sl time 'at altitude ' and flying vehicles myself ..... and havent seen any other airborne vehicle for a good year or so....

 

By th way your facts on the ostrich are erroneous assuming you are using that old fallacy about em burying their head in the sand... so basically your facys were 100% wrong....

---

Considering the both of you are using anecdotal evidence (personal experience) to support your opinions, neither of you are making factual statements regarding Second Life air travel. You are relating your personal experiences.

Treating these experiences as if they define the rest of the world damages your credibility.

---

While you are correct this is only anecdotal evidence on both our parts, the fact that he has not seen any one else flying is not proof that no one else is flying.  It is only evidence that he has not seen any one else flying.  And that could be a true statement.

On the other hand, if no one else is flying, contrary to what I have claimed to have observed, then that would make me a liar.

I could argue from his observation that maybe no one wants to fly with him.  But I do not know that for a fact except that then he would have seen at least one "other airborne vehicle."