Security Orb Creators and Owners

[Scylla Rhiadra]

@Ethan Paslong, possibly you missed my question earlier, so I'll ask it again, because I think your answer might be instructive. To put it in simpler terms, perhaps, than I did above:

You've argued that 60 seconds is an "unreasonably" long time to give someone to vacate before forcibly ejecting them, and that 20 seconds is quite sufficient.

What exactly are the material costs of giving them that extra 40 seconds? What do you actually lose, or what risks incur, by making it 60 seconds rather than 20?

An hour, or maybe even a half hour, I can understand: that's enough time for an intruder to call a friend over and take your new expensive sex bed for a joy ride. And who wants to be left cleaning sheets someone else has soiled, right? Plus, they almost always leave the pillows strewn about.

Even 15 minutes is long enough for someone to be invasive and intrusive, i.e., rifling through your underwear drawer, changing the default settings on your remote, breaking your favourite coffee mug, or checking out your browser history on your desktop. So, I get that, really.

But what can an intruder do in 60 seconds that they can't do in 20? What is the actual point of not giving them a bit more time? This is a genuine question: maybe I'm overlooking something?

Edited April 8, 2019 by Scylla Rhiadra
Edited for wordiness

[Cindy Evanier]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

What is the actual point of not giving them a bit more time?

Ethan might be having an innocent cuddle in his underwear of course.  It would be kind of a mood killer if you had to wait 60 seconds for the intruder to get kicked

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Cindy Evanier said:

Ethan might be having an innocent cuddle in his underwear of course.  It would be kind of a mood killer if you had to wait 60 seconds for the intruder to get kicked

I guess. Ethan would be actually there, then, though: he doesn't need a security orb at all in that instance.

[Ethan Paslong]

8 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

What exactly are the material costs of giving them that extra 40 seconds? What do you actually lose, or what risks incur, by making it 60 seconds rather than 20?

i don't mind what the costs in any way are, if any,  but only use the possibilities a landowner on the mainland has , and thats in this case .. his land his rules, and as long that's not changing people can do that. If moles putting those obelisks with those txts is great but everybody can ignore those, if LL want that as guidelines for mainland, they should publish it at the official blogs and website.
If you want to fly over, use the map and stay over roads, if you end in a banline as pilot .. you'r simply too low..and if you drive a car and can't keep on the roads.. train your skills in controlling your vehicle. There is no reason to be on anybody elses land without approval.
Plan your route, ask the owners you'll gonna meet on the way upfront, you'll see the doors will open more smoothly.
 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Ethan Paslong said:

his land his rules

Well, ok, that's sort of the classic response, but it doesn't answer my question regarding the actual justification for using 20 seconds rather than a more generous 60 seconds . . . which I take to mean that you aren't restricting the time to 20 seconds for any particular reason, other than that you can?

Perhaps as a way of asserting your ownership of the land? Or, just because?

You're quite right, of course, that the fact that you've paid for your land means that this is your decision to make. I'm not suggesting otherwise. And possibly you're right about flyovers and passing motorists: I don't really know. Again, though, that doesn't really answer my question.

But I think it's useful and instructive to establish that this is a pretty much arbitrary decision, with no actual basis in practical terms. It's in your power to be less rather than more generous, and you've chosen the former, for personal reasons that don't, by your own account, seem to have any basis in logic.

As you say, your land, your rules.

[So Whimsy]

40 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

You've argued that 60 seconds is an "unreasonably" long time to give someone to vacate before forcibly ejecting them, and that 20 seconds is quite sufficient.

What exactly are the material costs of giving them that extra 40 seconds? What do you actually lose, or what risks incur, by making it 60 seconds rather than 20?

Why even bring up material cost when it's clearly about personal opinion and what people feel comfortable with?

60 seconds indeed seems excessive. If someone is private enough to put a security orb in, they're not going to be comfortable giving such a long span of time for people to touch all the food in their fridge, pee on their living room floor and chase the cat around the house (or vice-versa if the landowner owns a really big cat).

20 seconds is fine, even as a pedestrian unless you're roleplaying as a grandma and the parcel is huge (1/4 sim and bigger).

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Syn Anatine said:

Why even bring up material cost when it's clearly about personal opinion and what people feel comfortable with?

Absolutely. Security orbs are, however, supposedly about "security" -- hence the name. That doesn't seem to be the point here.

I just wanted to establish clearly that this was arbitrary and about "personal preference" rather than about protecting something, preventing damage, or other practical or material concerns. It makes a difference to me, in terms of how I am going to judge that choice. But sure, Ethan's "comfort" is important too.

7 minutes ago, Syn Anatine said:

chase the cat around the house (or vice-versa if the landowner owns a really big cat)

Now that would be a clever security system! I'd deliberately intrude if I thought I'd get to play hide and seek with an animesh security cat!

[HeathcliffMontague]

As has been shown on this forum before, ban lines can actually encroach on Linden roads on the mainland. Not often, but it happens. Someone inexperienced with security setups may cause them to go wider than intended and cause a similar effect.

I consider myself a pretty experienced SL driver, and when mainland driving my scripts are kept low, I use vehicles suited for SIM crossings (not racetrack vehicles) and I keep an eye on the FS mini map all the way. I cruise. Still, if I cross a SIM crossing straight into a ban line or wayward security orb with 0 seconds I usually have little chance of recovering.

If I had land bordering on mainland roads or sailable waters I'd at least bother checking how my orb/security setup might affect those traveling past it. But that's just me. Although, if you at least take the time to check that, I'd think most in the driving or boating community wouldn't really give a toss what your eject time is.

[Marianne Little]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Now that would be a clever security system! I'd deliberately intrude if I thought I'd get to play hide and seek with an animesh security cat!

You read about she who has wasps in this thread or another thread? I have one of those hives too. They are more "friendly" considering the alternative, and because there is no systemic reactions in SL. I haven't had them up since I got another system. (Because you must have free LI to rez wasps)

Edited April 8, 2019 by Marianne Little
added to clarify

[Scylla Rhiadra]

31 minutes ago, Marianne Little said:

You read about she who has wasps in this thread or another thread? I have one of those hives too. They are more "friendly" considering the alternative, and because there is no systemic reactions in SL. I haven't had them up since I got another system. (Because you must have free LI to rez wasps)

Yes, I do remember! Although there was, in that instance, some possible suggestion that the person in question was enticing people on to her land so that they would then get chased off.

I'd try that! Once. Wasps aren't as cute as cats, so I think the appeal would likely fade pretty quickly.

[Selene Gregoire]

Not a single person is taking into account those of us who do not see well any longer and who just might need that extra time to be able to bring up a LM from inventory and then tp out.

Not a single person is taking into account those who have arthritis in their hands.

Might as well just go ahead and ban me from all of your parcels. Save us both the hassle and heartache. 

[Love Zhaoying]

I misread “landowner” as “lawnmower” in a post. Idea: design a security orb that is a flying lawnmower. That’ll learn ‘me!

[Cindy Evanier]

1 minute ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Not a single person is taking into account those of us who do not see well any longer and who just might need that extra time to be able to bring up a LM from inventory and then tp out.

TP home works faster than looking for a LM.   I prefer oooops and move along should I stray onto someone elses land by mistake

[animats]

Quote

The rule has always been that a script must only message avatars while they're on land owned by the device owner (including greeters, etc.) unless the recipient has opted-in to the messaging (as with group notices, subscribe-o-matics, etc). If they've already passed through and yet a script issues them a warning, that's technically a violation.

That's good to know. Driving around on Linden roads, I get messages from greeters, speed cameras, landmark offers, "Can we put you on our picture wall" offers, and threats from overreaching security orbs. Fortunately, browser dialogs go away if you don't answer them.

[Selene Gregoire]

Just now, Cindy Evanier said:

TP home works faster than looking for a LM.   I prefer oooops and move along should I stray onto someone elses land by mistake

Why should I have to tp home and then have to start my store hopping all over again when I'm in the middle of tracking down things I want to buy? I have a method I use that is effective for me, I shouldn't have to change it just because someone doesn't have any compassion.  

I'm not saying don't use orbs. I'm saying be how you want others to be, considerate of those who are not able to react swiftly through no fault of their own.

 

 

[Fionalein]

2 hours ago, Syn Anatine said:

... and chase the cat around the house (or vice-versa if the landowner owns a really big cat).

But what if the landowner is a cat?

[Cindy Evanier]

4 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

those who are not able to react swiftly through no fault of their own.

I am in that category, I have MS.  I just don't expect everyone to cater to my disabilities if I am on their land. It won't upset me if I get kicked out.

[Selene Gregoire]

5 minutes ago, Cindy Evanier said:

I am in that category, I have MS.  I just don't expect everyone to cater to my disabilities if I am on their land. It won't upset me if I get kicked out.

I don't "expect everyone to cater to my disabilities". I just would like to see people be more compassionate and considerate. They want that from me so why should they not give the same in return?

[Amina Sopwith]

10 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

But what if the landowner is a cat?

Then the door will be permanently open anyway while the owner decides whether to go in or out.

[Theresa Tennyson]

5 hours ago, Brenda Archer said:

FWIW, 20 seconds is not enough time if I have a vehicle stuck in a banline, a car turned wrong on rough or narrow ground or a separation of a skipper and a passenger after a botched sim crossing. It’s also not enough if I’ve had to set my wind to a low low speed so I can very slowly navigate a narrow strip of Linden water. 

Also I’m not sure everyone knows how to use the Firestorm mini map to show parcel lines at the middle setting. So they’re steering purely by visual cues according to what has managed to rezz for them. 

As long as the other side is now at least thinking of compromising we should be reasonable. While we're debunking imaginary rights I should point out that there's no Right to Remain In Character; nor is there a Right to Amble. I haven't found a vehicle situation I can't get out of in 20 seconds

Getting stuck on a banline shouldn't be an issue with an orb because you wouldn't be in the lot that the orb would cover in the first place. I tolerate ban lines because they're comparatively avoidable. In a perfect world people would set up their lots so the ban lines wouldn't cover parts of a lot that the owner wouldn't have complete control of in the real world (i.e. open water next to a waterway or land immediately to the side of a road) but of course it isn't a perfect world. I would request that if that solution calls to you that you at least turn off Object Entry, so you don't have the situation of a vehicle entering the lot while the owner stays behind.

If I find myself in a situation where I can't quickly get out of a lot using the vehicle controls I just edit the vehicle and drag it out of the lot.

In other words, I'd be pretty happy with landowners if they would just calm down with "zero-second teleport home" orbs, which:

1) Increase vehicle littering as the owner isn't there to clean up,

2) Run the risk of permanently breaking any worn scripted object on the avatar being teleported,

and

3) Really can't be considered a "landowner's right" (if such a thing existed) because the landowner's "rights" would end the moment the intruder is off their property.

Yes, the function exists and has its uses for dealing with specific problem people, but that isn't what a random person wandering across a lot line is.

 

[Female Winslet]

50 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Not a single person is taking into account those who have arthritis in their hands.

Its not arthritis in my case, but I too have limited use of my hands because of a series of injuries (and, more recently, hand surgeries). 

I like the one minute guideline on orbs. It seems like it’s a rule that works for all types of vehicles, including sailboats that have to worry about wind direction, and all parcel sizes, and for those of us with physical issues of various types.  I know it’s more than is probably needed for, say, a 1024m parcel most of the time. But, like Ethan points out, it doesn’t do any damage, but it is something that seems like it would work for everbody.

If I had my way, I’d get rid of orbs entirely. But one minute seems like a kind of reasonable compromise. 

34 minutes ago, Cindy Evanier said:

I am in that category, I have MS.  I just don't expect everyone to cater to my disabilities if I am on their land. It won't upset me if I get kicked out.

In real life, there are laws about this kind of thing. In Second Life, it’s a fair question whether those laws would apply (i.e., requiring LL to make accommodation via TOS) but it should be no question that basic human decency requires a bit of kindness to people with a disability. 

[Da5id Weatherwax]

I don't think this discussion will ever go away, because there's always going to be a wide range over which folks opinions will vary as to what's "reasonable" and what's "being a jerk" but what it comes down to for me is that different people have different reasons for wanting the limits they set on access to their parcels and those are none of my business and not my place to criticize. Whatever they want to set up they can, using parcel access controls and.or "security scripting" in ways that could be creatively unobtrusive or as subtle as an asteroid impact.

You may not be able or willing to secure your parcel - or parts of it -  in ways that will never interfere with passing traffic, but if you're going to create a hazard, mark the hazard. It's very little hassle to do this in ways appropriate to your inworld setting.

For example: If you can't (or don't want to) avoid your land-based security overlapping what would otherwise be navigable waters, keep at least one safe channel and spare a few LI to place marker buoys so sailors know where the safe channel is and can avoid "running aground" on your "security reef." I'm sure most SL sailors, if they saw a landowner had taken the time to place a few port and starboard buoys or even just a cardinal marker where a corner of a protected parcel jutted out into water, would honor the marks and steer a course accordingly.

[animats]

Maybe LL should charge extra tier if you have objects above 256m not connected to the ground on mainland. Skyboxes are really a cheat to make more land without paying for it, after all.

[Amina Sopwith]

I've never understood the force teleport home thing. Why is that even an option? Why can you not, as people have said, use a system that simply creates an impassable barrier? That you just bounce off or slide over rather than being pinged potentially right the other side of the grid or having your vehicle broken? Forced teleport is just awful unless you're using RLV and you've signed up for it.

It's a genuine question. I'm not technical and very very new to SL travel in this sense, so I might be missing something. Just can't see why one wouldn't, or couldn't, just make an impenetrable but harmless barrier, rather than flinging people all over the place or wrecking their stuff. Especially when, by general consensus, most "trespassers" are doing it accidentally and don't have any nefarious intent.

[Selene Gregoire]

17 minutes ago, animats said:

Maybe LL should charge extra tier if you have objects above 256m not connected to the ground on mainland. Skyboxes are really a cheat to make more land without paying for it, after all.

Most people have skyboxes so they don't have to deal with people encroaching on their land as often as they would have to deal with it at ground level. Skyboxes don't give you any more land. They just allow greedy land barons to stack people much like they do in real life apartment complexes. Which never works very well. Stacking skyboxes is just asking for trouble.