Security Orb Creators and Owners

[Selene Gregoire]

18 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

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.

Security orbs don't work the same way as the land tool ban lines. The coverage area is a circumference rather than conforming to the shape of the parcel so you can't really adjust them to your parcel only AND have full coverage of the whole parcel without going outside "property lines".

That's the simplest way to explain it that I know of.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Selene Gregoire

[Amina Sopwith]

5 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Security orbs don't work the same way as the land tool ban lines. The coverage area is a circumference rather than conforming to the shape of the parcel so you can't really adjust them to your parcel only AND have full coverage of the whole parcel without going outside "property lines".

That's the simplest way to explain it that I know of.

Thank you, I've no experience of owning property in SL either so this is all new. I still don't understand though why people then use orbs at all instead of invisible ban lines?

 

[Rolig Loon]

54 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Security orbs don't work the same way as the land tool ban lines. The coverage area is a circumference rather than conforming to the shape of the parcel so you can't really adjust them to your parcel only AND have full coverage of the whole parcel without going outside "property lines".

That's not really true, although it once was.  It's very easy to script a parcel security "orb" that detects anywhere over your parcel, regardless of its irregular shape, and can be restricted to work only within specific altitude limits.  I wrote one myself just the other day, in fact.  Since about 2013(?) there's been no reason for an orb to need a spherical detection volume.

[Rolig Loon]

52 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

I've no experience of owning property in SL either so this is all new. I still don't understand though why people then use orbs at all instead of invisible ban lines?

Why?  Because the ban lines are butt ugly, visually offensive things and because they are a rather coarse tool.  You can create "orbs" with many sophisticated options that are simply not part of the basic ban line concept.

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 hour ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Security orbs don't work the same way as the land tool ban lines. The coverage area is a circumference rather than conforming to the shape of the parcel so you can't really adjust them to your parcel only AND have full coverage of the whole parcel without going outside "property lines".

That's the simplest way to explain it that I know of.

 

11 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

That's not really true, although it once was.  It's very easy to script a parcel security "orb" that detects anywhere over your parcel, regardless of its irregular shape, and can be restricted to work only within specific altitude limits.  I wrote one myself just the other day, in fact.  Since about 2013(?) there's been no reason for an orb to need a spherical detection volume.

 

Pages back someone actually posted a link to an MP orb that works off of a square/rectangle shape - you apparently feed it the coordinates of the 4 corners of your plot.  That one isn't posh enough to handle odd shaped parcels, but it should cover a large many SL folks.

 

[Qie Niangao]

13 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

 Since about 2013(?) there's been no reason for an orb to need a spherical detection volume.

Right, apparently llGetAgentList() rolled grid-wide April 30, 2012, obviating llSensorRepeat() for such purposes. But also, according to the wiki, in 2003 llOverMyLand() was introduced as part of the 0.6.0 server, which meant that there was pretty much never any excuse for mistakenly warning folks outside the parcel -- even though it still happens embarrassingly often. 

Of course, with an orb it's possible to warn and "protect" a smaller perimeter than the parcel and (as you mentioned) operate at high altitude, whereas whitelist banlines only go up 50m above ground level and always surround the full surface extent of the parcel.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Qie Niangao

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 hour ago, Amina Sopwith said:

why people then use orbs at all instead of invisible ban lines?

Ban lines are only invisible if people set their viewer to not show them, which is not the default.  Many people that fly/drive/sail/etc.... actually keep them visible so they can try to have a better chance of avoiding them.  Additionally, I'm pretty sure that on Mainland the ban lines only go up a small height and thus couldn't protect a skybox at an altitude of 1000 m, for instance.

[Brenda Archer]

5 hours ago, HeathcliffMontague said:

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.

 

Yes, exactly.

You can check your scripts using an alt that is not in your land group. Walk around your parcel, fly across it, see if your orb or banlines are actually doing what you think they are. Not only will travelers appreciate this, your neighbors will too.

 I wouldn’t argue that I should be allowed onto water land just because it’s water. I use water as part of my own home with a mermaid RP theme. But if you are next to a Linden passage and your scripts affect someone in that passage, you have actually exceeded your rights as a landowner.

 

[Selene Gregoire]

1 hour ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Thank you, I've no experience of owning property in SL either so this is all new. I still don't understand though why people then use orbs at all instead of invisible ban lines?

 

Banlines aren't invisible. Well... they are until you're right on top of them and then you see the words floating in the air.

[Selene Gregoire]

57 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

That's not really true, although it once was.  It's very easy to script a parcel security "orb" that detects anywhere over your parcel, regardless of its irregular shape, and can be restricted to work only within specific altitude limits.  I wrote one myself just the other day, in fact.  Since about 2013(?) there's been no reason for an orb to need a spherical detection volume.

So if I have an L shaped parcel I can still cover every square inch with the orb, without going outside parcel boundary lines at all? With just one orb?

Hmmm. I was lead to believe that isn't possible. By at least one well known (or was) security orb scripter. Not sure if he is even in SL still and I can't think of his name at the moment. I met him through Succubus a long time ago.

[Brenda Archer]

3 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

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.

 

 

No ambling would be the end of mainland as a community, so it’s fortunate most people aren’t trying to have total privacy on the ground on mainland.

 I’m not fast enough, nor is my computer fast enough, to save myself from a bad sim crossing in twenty seconds using whatever technique. 

I’m not in favor of an orb ban or even a ban on a zero second timer, but I question the neighborliness of someone who can’t subdivide his land so the zero timer isn’t right next to a road, or his neighbor, or who feels the need to orb someone a thousand meters above a house with no one in it and no nearby skybox. 

 

[Qie Niangao]

2 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

So if I have an L shaped parcel I can still cover every square inch with the orb, without going outside parcel boundary lines at all? With just one orb?

Hmmm. I was lead to believe that isn't possible. By at least one well known (or was) security orb scripter. Not sure if he is even in SL still and I can't think of his name at the moment. I met him through Succubus a long time ago.

Even sillier: There is not now and never was a way to eject or teleport home an avatar that's not over the script-owner's land. Now, it is possible to send a bogus warning to somebody outside the parcel boundaries, but unless the script is doing something really weird (like a physical push to move an unseated avatar around the sim), it simply cannot eject nor teleport home an avatar located outside its owner's land.

[Rolig Loon]

So if I have an L shaped parcel I can still cover every square inch with the orb, without going outside parcel boundary lines at all? With just one orb? 

Yes, that's been possible for quite a long time ( since 2012, as verified by Qie, in fact).  I've created quite a few security devices that use the current technology and are guaranteed not to annoy anyone outside your parcel, no matter how misshapen it may be.  The one I wrote the other day can be set to work only between specific liMits ( say, 200m above your skybox and 150 m below it, or whatever you choose).   You can get rather sophisticated systems -- for use in a club or event venue, for example -- that allow authorized staff to adjust the parameters and add/remove names from the whitelist, or restrict access by underage residents, or send you an IM to tell you who tried to enter, or send up a flare, or ....  

Edited April 8, 2019 by Rolig Loon

[Selene Gregoire]

1 minute ago, Rolig Loon said:

Yes, that's been possible for quite a long time ( since 2012, as verified by Qie, in fact).  I've created quite a few security devices that use the current technology and are guaranteed not to annoy anyone outside your parcel, no matter how misshapen it may be.  The one I wrote the other day can be set to work only between specific liMits ( say, 200m above your skybox and 150 m below it, or whatever you choose).   You can get rather sophisticated systems -- for use in a club or event venue, for example -- that allow authorized staff to adjust the parameters and add/remove names from the whitelist, or restrict access by underage residents, or send you an IM to tell you who tried to enter, or send up a flare, or ....  

Thanks! Good to know!

Now if everyone who uses a security orb would just get one of those it would alleviate a good portion of the problem.

Yeah, I know. Wishful thinking.

Seems to me that it's the people who still use the old system that create the problem. 

[Rolig Loon]

1 minute ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Seems to me that it's the people who still use the old system that create the problem. 

That sort of depends on how you define the problem.  With my system, for example, a landowner could decide to set the upper and lower altitude limits to block anyone from ground level up to 4000m.  That would be truly nasty.  I'd consider it a problem, but my reading of this thread is that some landowners would be quite happy doing that.  Common sense isn't as common as it might be, and civil behavior is sometimes less civil than we might wish.

[Selene Gregoire]

11 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Even sillier: There is not now and never was a way to eject or teleport home an avatar that's not over the script-owner's land. Now, it is possible to send a bogus warning to somebody outside the parcel boundaries, but unless the script is doing something really weird (like a physical push to move an unseated avatar around the sim), it simply cannot eject nor teleport home an avatar located outside its owner's land.

Yeah I got all that a long time ago. lol The old systems did that all the time. Sending warnings when I wasn't even close to the parcel line. It was funny at first because it couldn't eject me, then it got to be like having a gnat buzzing around your ear. It started happening frequently enough that I stopped doing much exploring and just started TPing everywhere I wanted to go. 

Edited April 8, 2019 by Selene Gregoire

[Selene Gregoire]

1 minute ago, Rolig Loon said:

That sort of depends on how you define the problem.  With my system, for example, a landowner could decide to set the upper and lower altitude limits to block anyone from ground level up to 4000m.  That would be truly nasty.  I'd consider it a problem, but my reading of this thread is that some landowners would be quite happy doing that.  Common sense isn't as common as it might be, and civil behavior is sometimes less civil than we might wish.

So, as the scripter, knowing that people would/could/will do that (for some just to be mean) why set the limits that high? I mean, I know not all scripters are going to be aware of the situation and plan for it, but there are those who are so why not code in limits that help the situation rather than allow people to exacerbate it?

Or did I read your post completely wrong?

[Brenda Archer]

2 hours 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.

 

I really disagree. Small landowners have been building on the vertical in SL forever, and it’s not a cheat. Not everyone can afford the tier to spread out on a large lot. As long as the charge for tier also includes a limited prim count, landowners *are* paying for what they’re getting. 

The largest cause of the privacy issue is trying to RP privacy while still on the ground. It just doesn’t work. People wandering mainland are mostly on the ground and always have been. This makes it desirable, and definitely not a cheat, to use a high skybox for a private room. It works - for whatever reason, people don’t often wander around at high altitudes. 

I do think the approach that’s going to be taken with the new Linden homes is a really good one, with a ban on skyboxes below a certain level, but encouraged above. This preserves aesthetics on the ground, creates flyable airspace and encourages good privacy building techniques all at once. 

[Rolig Loon]

Just now, Selene Gregoire said:

Or did I read your post completely wrong?

Dunno. 

As a scripter, I decide what I want my script to do (or my client does, if I have been asked to meet a specific set of criteria.)  It would certainly be easy for me to create a security system that only allows you to adjust the detection range within a narrow band ( say, 50m above and below the device).  For the one I just made, I left it up to the buyer to make the responsible choice.  Mostly, I trust people to be nice and then reserve the right to be disappointed when they aren't.

[Marianne Little]

1 hour ago, Rolig Loon said:

That's not really true, although it once was.  It's very easy to script a parcel security "orb" that detects anywhere over your parcel, regardless of its irregular shape, and can be restricted to work only within specific altitude limits.  I wrote one myself just the other day, in fact.  Since about 2013(?) there's been no reason for an orb to need a spherical detection volume.

Perhaps they don't write it in the MP description? Because I've been in SL a long time, and when I found the 10 L that could set a square area, I was jumping with joy. I had only found sphere shaped areas. Or the ones that came up on top in search for security was all spheres.

I like to set it to detect people a bit inside my land. Covering the house area.

 

[Selene Gregoire]

11 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

Dunno. 

As a scripter, I decide what I want my script to do (or my client does, if I have been asked to meet a specific set of criteria.)  It would certainly be easy for me to create a security system that only allows you to adjust the detection range within a narrow band ( say, 50m above and below the device).  For the one I just made, I left it up to the buyer to make the responsible choice.  Mostly, I trust people to be nice and then reserve the right to be disappointed when they aren't.

Can't argue with that. Not that I'm trying to argue. 

I used to trust people to be nice. When I was young. The years have taught me that only holds true in small groups of people.

I think it would be a good thing if more orb creators would code limits like that for orbs that are offered for sale to the general public. Hopefully they will at least consider it. I believe it would help to alleviate a lot of people's frustrations on both sides of the argument.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Selene Gregoire

[Rolig Loon]

2 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

I used to trust people to be nice. When I was young. The years have taught me that only holds true in small groups of people.

And for certain well-defined values of "nice."  I treat being a creator in SL the same way I think of being a responsible scientist in RL.  There are some things that I can do but will not, no matter who asks.  Tummy talkers, for example, are an abomination  (disturbingly easy to create, but one of the worst things a resident can inflict on the rest of us), so I refuse to do it. I also won't make things that can be easily used as griefing tools.

Security systems are in a different class, for me.  I could decide on principle that I will only make a system that has a 200m range, but that would be purely arbitrary and would lead to a mess of requests from people who want to detect up to 250m and grumbling from people who wish I had restricted the range to 100m.  I just don't like making that arbitrary decision (or absolving the owner from the responsibility for making it).

[Selene Gregoire]

1 hour ago, Rolig Loon said:

And for certain well-defined values of "nice."  I treat being a creator in SL the same way I think of being a responsible scientist in RL.  There are some things that I can do but will not, no matter who asks.  Tummy talkers, for example, are an abomination  (disturbingly easy to create, but one of the worst things a resident can inflict on the rest of us), so I refuse to do it. I also won't make things that can be easily used as griefing tools.

Security systems are in a different class, for me.  I could decide on principle that I will only make a system that has a 200m range, but that would be purely arbitrary and would lead to a mess of requests from people who want to detect up to 250m and grumbling from people who wish I had restricted the range to 100m.  I just don't like making that arbitrary decision (or absolving the owner from the responsibility for making it).

That's what I mean. The grumbling part. Can't make everyone happy. It's not a Kobayashi Maru either. Both sides need to compromise, imo. That's as close as the problem is going to be solved at this point. At least on the residents' end. LL is a different kettle of fish.

[Brenda Archer]

I wonder how much of this could be solved with a rule that if you haven’t logged in for a year, your land’s scripts will be temporarily disabled. I’m not saying this is the best idea, but I’m very curious. 

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by Brenda Archer

[Rolig Loon]

45 minutes ago, Brenda Archer said:

I wonder how much of this could be solved with a rule that if you haven’t logged in for a year, your land’s scripts will be temporarily disabled. I’m not saying this is the best idea, but I’m very curious. 

Not much, I'm guessing.  I can't imagine many people who are willing to keep paying land fees, Premium membership, rent, whatever, for a year or more without logging in.  Not saying that it doesn't happen, but there can;t be a lot of people like that.