Should security orbs be more obvious and less "landmine style"?

[Kyrah Abattoir]

I'm not gonna discuss the necessity of security devices, obviously people feel that they need it and it's their land.

However not everyone share the idea of the "castle doctrine", there are many places on the mainland that are built with the idea of being welcoming to visitors.

As it is right now, security orbs are like landmines, they are invisible until you dare walk/roll/glide into their area of influence and then (more than often) boot you home with little to no warning, they also act as a huge deterrent for further exploring of the mainland.

You may not want visitors, and that's ok but it doesn't mean you should be discouraging anyone from exploring SL.

So here are a few crazy ideas for security orb guidelines that i'll certainly be drawn and quartered for:

• Require a minimum warning delay to vacate the area. 10 seconds, from personal experience is too short especially if you have to do course correction, not every plane in sl is an F-22, not every wheeled vehicle is a performance car and most orb users assume delays that are only really feasible for avatars, when they are feasible at all. It's my opinion but if you can't stand the idea of someone encroaching your Secondlife for 30 seconds, you have issues.
• Require their sphere of influence to be visible or obvious. Inside of a house? obvious. Translucent "do not enter" dome? obvious. An open field is not.
• Replace llTeleportAgentHome() by llEjectFromLand() when used on the mainland.
• Something should be made to inform land owners that they have ban lines active on their land. Believe it or not, but a lot of people set them and forget them. My initial suggestion would be to make the ban lines show on their side too... but that would be confusing. Ideas?.
• The region should check if an user is on a physical/object not owned by the parcel owner/group before they get ejected/bounced, and if yes, move the object instead.

[DaftLyn]

I dont like security orbs. I prefer people use ban lines. If I cant go inside a place I prefer a ban line not allowing me to go in than a security orb that allow me to go in than pop up the message that I am not welcome and I have a few seconds to get out.

[Orca Flotta]

Pssht Kyrah, don't let the many (many many) antisocial trolls hear your ideas. I once made the mistake of entering into such an dispute with them about banlines and sec orbs, like a year ago, and still licking my wounds. Those people aren't serious, they don't regard themself as part of the problem and they are not interested in a solution. They just wanna sit in their castles and make airplanes go p00f. They only have one goal: making SL a miserable place!

[Nova Convair]

Depends on the situation.

If I ever get enough unwanted visitors to bother me I will most probably script a device myself to make it extra quick and deadly. And I absolutely don't care If others like that or not.

If I am not bothered (like now) I don't use a device at all and I don't care if someone snoops around.

If someone dares to explore while I'm at home I will either be in the mood to talk or kick their asses manually as far as possible.

So whatever you like to discuss - I will not care.

 

[Coby Foden]

---

Kyrah Abattoir wrote:

 

• Require a minimum warning delay to vacate the area. 10 seconds, from personal experience is too short ...
   

• Require their sphere of influence to be visible or obvious. Inside of a house? obvious. Translucent "do not enter" dome? obvious. An open field is not.

---

• I agree that the usual 10 seconds warning time is ridiculously short time if one happens to enter the protected are with a vehicle. 60 seconds would be better. On the other hand I can understand that there might be times when the land owner wants to get rid of any unwanted visitors without any warning time at all - like from inside their houses. But for somebody just passing by the land, with a vehicle for example, an immediate ejection is not very cool - especially so if nobody is not even at home.

• There are security orbs which will show visually to the "intruder" the protected area. The orb owner can turn it ON/OFF.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

I have several types of vehicles that i enjoy using on roads water and in the air  I keep my property on the Blake sea open to allow people to sail and fly through. 

However I feel that who ever pays a tier or rent can choose to use ban lines or security devices, unless a private estate owner or land lord forbids the use of them..  No one, including myself, has a right to go on private property without invitation and I very rarely have a problem with ban lines / security devices because i don't go where I am not invited  The few times I have swerved accidently onto private land, I blame myself if i get ejected or tp'd home, not the landowner, 

Just because you fly a plane, sail or drive a vehicle, doesn't give you any right to go on private property unless the landowner allows it.  Your enjoyment of your vehicle does not take precedence over the rights of landowners.   The TOS clearly states this.  It is only people that that have problems with this think they have the right to go where they please or want to impose 'community' on people that are not interested.  Not everyone is in SL for that.

There are many posts in this forum that complain that ban lines are ugly,  If a security orb is used instead and has a big dome or other visual that warns of people, what is the difference?

As far as eject vs tp home, If i have to use a security system because of griefers or troublemakers (which i occasionally have), why would i eject them to my neighbors property so they end up with the problem? 

The bottom line is that LL will never regulate mainland with rules like you propose or impose a covenant other than a few themed places.  Many people choose mainland precisely for this reason.  If you want rules like this, there are many private multi sim estates that have them. There are many choices available in SL to accommodate everyone.

 

 

[Kelli May]

---

Kyrah Abattoir wrote:

I'm not gonna discuss the necessity of security devices, obviously people feel that they need it and it's their land.

However not everyone share the idea of the "castle doctrine", there are many places on the mainland that are built with the idea of being welcoming to visitors.

As it is right now, security orbs are like landmines, they are invisible until you dare walk/roll/glide into their area of influence and then (more than often) boot you home with little to no warning, they also act as a huge deterrent for further exploring of the mainland.

You may not want visitors, and that's ok but it doesn't mean you should be discouraging anyone from exploring SL.

So here are a few crazy ideas for security orb guidelines that i'll certainly be drawn and quartered for:

• Require a minimum warning delay to vacate the area. 10 seconds, from personal experience is too short especially if you have to do course correction, not every plane in sl is an F-22, not every wheeled vehicle is a performance car and most orb users assume delays that are only really feasible for avatars, when they are feasible at all. It's my opinion but if you can't stand the idea of someone encroaching your Secondlife for 30 seconds, you have issues.
• Require their sphere of influence to be visible or obvious. Inside of a house? obvious. Translucent "do not enter" dome? obvious. An open field is not.
• Replace llTeleportAgentHome() by llEjectFromLand() when used on the mainland.
• Something should be made to inform land owners that they have ban lines active on their land. Believe it or not, but a lot of people set them and forget them. My initial suggestion would be to make the ban lines show on their side too... but that would be confusing. Ideas?.
• The region should check if an user is on a physical/object not owned by the parcel owner/group before they get ejected/bounced, and if yes, move the object instead.

---

I agree with the general line of thought, but disagree on some of the specifics. It's hard to have a set of rules that work for all cases. At one end you have people intruding on private areas intending to grief the occupants. Somewhere between there are the wanderers with no concept of personal space - the kind of people who look for dots on the map to interact with, unaware that not everyone is here to chat with every random visitor all the time. At the other end are the mostly innocent travellers who just want to be through the parcel and on to their destination.

To deal with your points one by one...

A longer delay is certainly a benefit. For anyone simply passing through on a vehicle, you can often be through most parcels and gone in a few seconds. If I'm flying a vehicle I ignore most orb warnings because it's faster to go through than to turn around. If I'm walking I back up (given time). If I'm driving, I'd be on a road and shouldn't be hitting any security anyway. Assuming the traveller has good intentions, this is a good solution for all but the most secretive landowner.

Creating a visible sphere of influence is a nice idea, but the aesthetics are not to everyone's taste. And given the time it takes for objects to rez for some people, it might not even help them avoid it.

llEjectFromLand() is fine as long as the nearest parcel edge is a 'legal' spot to eject to. If it's a sim edge with no neighbour the action fails. Also, combined with a longer delay, you would likely get griefers hopping in and out of the parcel until someone showed up to boot them home.

I agree on banline visibility. In addition, some TPVs show restricted parcels on the minimap; something the official viewer could really use.

I've no idea if the last idea is practical, but it would be enormously preferable to being forcibly removed from a vehicle (often leaving said vehicle stuck on a parcel boundary somewhere).

[Jazleen Raynier]

I live in what I think is a secluded area, only 3 pieces of land and none are commercial yet I still seem to get a lot of traffic dropping in - including some idiot griefer who hit all 3 of us the other night. I have a security orb, it is attached to the outside of my house and is not hidden. I initially had a 50 second warning until the griefer incident when my land owner recommended knocking it down to 10 seconds, and also because one person in particular seems to be getting on my land regardless of being on the land ban list and my orb ban list and no-one can tell my why. 

However, if I was in the middle of commercial land, that would be different, as I've done it myself, gone wandering on land classed as ;public' only to step onto someones land that is private, yet slap bang in the middle of public..

[Perrie Juran]

Having been listening to the debates for years I concluded long ago that their is no solution that can make everyone happy.

 

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Orca Flotta wrote:

Pssht Kyrah, don't let the many (many many) antisocial trolls hear your ideas. I once made the mistake of entering into such an dispute with them about banlines and sec orbs, like a year ago, and still licking my wounds. Those people aren't serious, they don't regard themself as part of the problem and they are not interested in a solution. They just wanna sit in their castles and make airplanes go p00f. They only have one goal: making SL a miserable place!

---

There is no solution and there never will be.  LL will always side with those that actually pay them good money in order to do whatever the hell they want with their own land.  Arguing about it will get you nowhere.

It's quite simple... land owners have a legitimate right to keep you off their parcel, while you've no legitimate right to enter and/or travel through their parcel, should they decide that they don't want you to... period.  End of discussion.

Now, if you want to talk about educating people as to the detrimental effect of their decisions on SL travelers such as yourself, that's a different story.  That would be much more beneficial to your cause, then are the vitriolic accusations of antisocial behavior and trollery with which you so regularly ascribe them.

...Dres

[Kyrah Abattoir]

I am not debating wether you should have all reign on your land. The problem to me is that the current state of things, a handful of security orbs can act as a deterrent to visit the entire region because their boundaries are not clear and their delay too short to correct course.

To take the analogy of the minefield, you don't need to cover every sqaure inch of the field in mines, you only need a few to deter anyone from crossing the entire field.

It is your right to protect your land from intruders but it shouldn't act as an invisible deterrent to use the land of those that do not feel the same as you do.

And that's why i think security orbs should be visible. Yes it will be ugly, but while i can use tools to read parcel settings and determinate wether i'm allowed in or not, a security orb doesn't give me any "warning, do not enter" It is a **bleep**ing trap waiting to be set off if you use them anywhere outside a building.

Yes it prevent people to come in uninvited on your land, and also to any neighboring parcels that allow it.

[Phil Deakins]

I agree that 10 seconds is much too short because the time is likely to be up before you've finished realising that you have such a notice and reading it. 20 to 30 seconds seconds would be much better.

[Phil Deakins]

---

DaftLyn wrote:

I dont like security orbs. I prefer people use ban lines. If I cant go inside a place I prefer a ban line not allowing me to go in than a security orb that allow me to go in than pop up the message that I am not welcome and I have a few seconds to get out.

---

On the ground, ban lines are seeable but they don't work where skyboxes are, so, to keep people out it has to be security devices up there. And that's where flying devices fly. People have no right to fly over other people's land. Perhaps they can try sailing or driving instead. But if they really do want to fly, they should fly slowly so that they can see what's in the vicinity. It's down to the fliers to sort it out for themselves. They can do it if they want to. They have no grounds for complaint if they fly into a security device.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Having been listening to the debates for years I concluded long ago that their is no solution that can make everyone happy.

 

---

Actually, I think there is. Well almost. We discussed the problem of flying into security devices back in RA, and at length. If LL would institute a no-security zone at a certain height band, the fliers could use it without running into problems. Only those who insist on being able to see details on the ground would moan, but they'd have nothing to moan about.

It's not going to happen, but I do think it's a solution.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Having been listening to the debates for years I concluded long ago that their is no solution that can make everyone happy.

 

---

Actually, I think there is. Well almost. We discussed the problem of flying into security devices back in RA, and at length. If LL would institute a no-security zone at a certain height band, the fliers could use it without running into problems. Only those who insist on being able to see details on the ground would moan, but they'd

[Whom? The landowner or the fliers?]

have

nothing

less or more depending on perspective

to moan about.

It's not going to happen, but I do think it's a solution.

---

I did say "Everyone."  It did mean "Everyone."

You could make some, possibly even a majority happy.

Some of the "drama" could be alleviated.

I still don't think it could be eliminated.

On air zones, the complaints would then be things like, "Those helicopters have been hovering  in the air space above/below my home for a week now.

Also, see my notes in blue in your post.

 

[Kyrah Abattoir]

You have a right to do whatever you want with the airspace over the land you rent, but how am i supposed to guess what you want?

I have no interest in trespassing on your precious land, but what about the right for other landowners that do not wish to have such restrictions? because you're sharing the same region they shouldn't get to have their way so you can have yours?

I disagree with those here that try to push the etiquette that "visitors are not allowed by default anywhere" is the rule one has to assume when traveling in SL and that you deserve to be caught in a security orb for not following this rule.

Why not put an invisible hollow sphere around the place you wish to protect? so instead of getting sent home People will just bump into it and be on their merry way. Most people given the option will not insist, and if they do your orb can then send them home.

[Hugsy Penguin]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Having been listening to the debates for years I concluded long ago that their is no solution that can make everyone happy.

 

---

I agree but I think they may come close:

To me, the best solution is to let land owners secure their land while letting others see the secure zones from a distance (i.e., on the map/mini-map).

 

Right now on mainland, we have a what I'll call a 'privacy zone'.  It extends from ground level to 50 meters above ground and is enabled when you turn off public access.  If you want privacy above that, you need a security orb.

 

I propose this:  Allow land owners to define the top and bottom of the privacy zone.  This eliminates the need for security orbs, therefore, they'll be banned.  Also, display on the map/mini-map where the privacy zones are.  This gives vehicle users no excuse for crashing into ban lines.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Hugsy Penguin wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Having been listening to the debates for years I concluded long ago that their is no solution that can make everyone happy.

 

---

I agree but I think they may come close:

To me, the best solution is to let land owners secure their land while letting others see the secure zones

from a distance

(i.e., on the map/mini-map).

 

Right now on mainland, we have a what I'll call a 'privacy zone'.  It extends from ground level to 50 meters above ground and is enabled when you turn off public access.  If you want privacy above that, you need a security orb.

 

I propose this:  Allow land owners to define the top and bottom of the privacy zone.  This eliminates the need for security orbs, therefore, they'll be banned.  Also, display on the map/mini-map where the privacy zones are. 

This gives vehicle users no excuse for crashing into ban lines.

---

Don't forget letting people know when they've been explicitly banned by somebody they've never even exchanged words with. Bu,t that's another story.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Kyrah Abattoir wrote:

 

It is your right to protect your land from intruders but it shouldn't act as an invisible deterrent to use the land of those that do not feel the same as you do.

---

You just don't get that you are not allowed to use someone else's land if they don't want you to.  If i owned a lot on a sim and used ban lines and a security orb to protect it from the land all the way up to the top of the sky, I am not detrring anyone from using THEIR land as they see fit, only my land.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Hugsy Penguin wrote

I propose this:  Allow land owners to define the top and bottom of the privacy zone.  This eliminates the need for security orbs, therefore, they'll be banned.  Also, display on the map/mini-map where the privacy zones are.  This gives vehicle users no excuse for crashing into ban lines.

---

This is the most sensible solution to this debate I have seen.  Kudos to you.  You should start a JIRA on this.

[Pussycat Catnap]

If you appear inside the walls of my SL Home, why should I have to wait 10 seconds before you're zapped?

Why should I have to zap you manually?

 

While I can see your points somewhat out in the open, inside the walls of my home is a whole other matter - and the ideal method for me there is a security orb, so that those of you passing by on land or in the air never need be disturbed unless you go inside that home.

 

As for ban lines - I like the idea of making them visible from the inside when close to the borders, plus a message everytime another avatar collides with them, up to once per 12 hours per avatar.

[Kyrah Abattoir]

Then

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

Kyrah Abattoir wrote:

It is your right to protect your land from intruders but it shouldn't act as an invisible deterrent to use the land of those that do not feel the same as you do.

---

You just don't get that you are not allowed to use someone else's land if they don't want you to.  If i owned a lot on a sim and used ban lines and a security orb to protect it from the land all the way up to the top of the sky, I am not detrring anyone from using THEIR land as they see fit, only my land.

---

Re-read what i wrote, at no point am i saying that anyone should be allowed to use the land of people who do not want them to.

All i'm saying is that you should make it obvious that you are using a security orb because we cannot foresee that you don't want anyone crossing your parcel until we get forcibly sent home by your security device.

[Hugsy Penguin]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

Hugsy Penguin wrote

I propose this:  Allow land owners to define the top and bottom of the privacy zone.  This eliminates the need for security orbs, therefore, they'll be banned.  Also, display on the map/mini-map where the privacy zones are.  This gives vehicle users no excuse for crashing into ban lines.

---

This is the most sensible solution to this debate I have seen.  Kudos to you.  You should start a JIRA on this.

---

Thanks.  I had thought of doing that.  A concern is that this plan says that security orb use is to be made a TOS violation.  If that happens, it will cause much gnashing of teeth by the orb makers, as well as, the people who don't pay attention to TOS updates and all of a sudden find their orbs removed by LL.

If they don't outlaw security orbs, then it will be very difficult to get people to actually remove their orbs and fix their privacy zone.  It would also allow land owners to basically grief people by marking a volume of their land explicitly open-to-the-public and then sending home everyone who shows up.

Even with the potential issues surrounding security orbs, I would love to see this implemented.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Kyrah Abattoir wrote:

You have a right to do whatever you want with the airspace over the land you rent, but how am i supposed to guess what you want?

---

Move slowly so that you can see what's in the vicinity and avoid getting close. I already said that. If that's not good enough, use a different mode of travel.

There is never a need to get close to buildings in the sky that you don't know are open to everyone. There is only curiosity and that's not a need. There's nothing wrong with curiosity, of course, but approach with caution and accept any consequences that you may trigger.

 

---

I have no interest in trespassing on your precious land, but what about the right for other landowners that do not wish to have such restrictions? because you're sharing the same region they shouldn't get to have their way so you can have yours?

---

I don't understand what are getting at in that paragraph. Security devices can only eject people when those people are on or over the owner's land. Other land owners in the sim aren't affected by them.

 

 

---

I disagree with those here that try to push the etiquette that "visitors are not allowed by default anywhere" is the rule one has to assume when traveling in SL and that you deserve to be caught in a security orb for not following this rule.

---

You are free to disagree, of course. There are pros and cons to that argument. However, you have to accept that visitors are not allowed everywhere because that's the reality. You don't get a choice of opinions about that. So you have to live with the reality and, if you want to use other people's property, by flying over it, for instance, you need to be cautious in how you do it. Go slowly enough to see things, and don't approach things that you don't know, or at least approach with caution, and accept that there may be consequences. Fast flying can be hazardous to your health is SL, so don't do it.

 

 

---

Why not put an invisible hollow sphere around the place you wish to protect? so instead of getting sent home People will just bump into it and be on their merry way. Most people given the option will not insist, and if they do your orb can then send them home.

---

That sounds perfectly reasonable, but only for larger parcels. It's not so reasonable for smaller parcels.

 

 

Finally, fliers have no rights in the sky above other people's property so live with that fact. I do agree with you about allowing sufficient time to get away when you are in the open and not inside someone's building.

[Kyrah Abattoir]

What i'm getting at is that even just one land owners setting up an agressive security system in a given region creates a deterrent to visit the entire region, regardless of how the OTHER land owners in the region feel about visitors. If those areas where clearly visible (a clearly defined skybox, some kind of structure that makes it visually clear that this area is off limit) people could navigate around them, respecting the land owner's rights.

Instead , we have invisible minefields that cannot be detected and generally extend as far as possible (because a buffer zone always has to be cranked up to 11). You would think that people using orbs would want others to know that there is an orb there so that it can be avoided.

Frankly considering the despicable behaviors i've seen with people putting orbs near airfields boundaries or public venues and the impossibility to at least come to a "good neighbor" etiquette, i'm suspecting that part of the reason some land owners want things to stay this way is because of the leverage it gives them on what goes on in the region they rent in, beyond the boundaries of their parcel.