Revoke the use of Security Orbs in Mainland

[Aethelwine]

---

Rhonda Huntress wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

---

Don't get me wrong.  As a sailor myself, I agree it would be better for people not to use ban lines and security orbs unless it is absolutely needed to prevent griefers or harassment.  However I defend the right of

any

land owner to use them because

they pay for the land, not vehicle owners

, and have the right (privilege, ability, whatever) to use them under the TOS.

---

What part of the TOS allows a landowner to teleport someone without warning?

---

What part of the TOS prevents a landowner for teleporting someone without warning?

---

I don't think the TOS really matters, nor does whether the person payig for the land has paid because they can use an orb or not.

The issue of interest is what set of rules, would work best for Linden Lab, for Second life, for owners and for explorers.

Whilst some land owners on mainland appear to want to unseat and teleport vehicle users home without warning that pass over their parcel, they are a tiny minority (the Wiki article references a survey that establishes that - some time ago admittedly but I don't see any reason to think that situation has changed). The landowners use of the tools at their disposal in this way doesn't add as much if anything to their experience as it detracts from the majority that don't want their journeys disrupted by aggressive orbs. That really is quite simple.

The difficulty lies in whether it is actually practicable in any way to effectively change the system for the collective benefit without also having other negative side effects. nerfing the script routines that orbs use might also prevent group roles being designated on group owned land with the ability to kick people causing problems. I am not a scripter, but I see that issue, the practical issue of whether a better system is possible as the barrier to resolving this. Not whether someone has paid or not, or what is or isn't currently in the TOS - I just don't see how those points have any relevance.

[Rhonda Huntress]

---

Aethelwine wrote

The issue of interest is what set of rules, would work best for Linden Lab, for Second life, for owners and for explorers.

---

For LL, ignoring the issue and calling it a resident to resident dispute seems to be what they are going with.

What is best for the explorers and what is best for the land owners has been laid out in this and many other threads already.  These are at odds, obviously.

What's best for SL?  I honestly don't know.  But it would need to work at every altitude and be applicable whether you owned 512sqm or 4 contiguous mainland sims.  Right now, barring any other compelling reason, I tend to side with the Golden Rule; whoever pays the gold makes the rules.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

---

Rhonda Huntress wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

---

Don't get me wrong.  As a sailor myself, I agree it would be better for people not to use ban lines and security orbs unless it is absolutely needed to prevent griefers or harassment.  However I defend the right of

any

land owner to use them because

they pay for the land, not vehicle owners

, and have the right (privilege, ability, whatever) to use them under the TOS.

---

What part of the TOS allows a landowner to teleport someone without warning?

---

What part of the TOS prevents a landowner for teleporting someone without warning?

---

I don't think the TOS really matters, nor does whether the person payig for the land has paid because they can use an orb or not.

The issue of interest is what set of rules, would work best for Linden Lab, for Second life, for owners and for explorers.

Whilst some land owners on mainland appear to want to unseat and teleport vehicle users home without warning that pass over their parcel, they are a tiny minority (the Wiki article references

a survey

that establishes that - some time ago admittedly but I don't see any reason to think that situation has changed). The landowners use of the tools at their disposal in this way doesn't add as much if anything to their experience as it detracts from the majority that don't want their journeys disrupted by aggressive orbs. That really is quite simple.

The difficulty lies in whether it is actually practicable in any way to effectively change the system for the collective benefit without also having other negative side effects. nerfing the script routines that orbs use might also prevent group roles being designated on group owned land with the ability to kick people causing problems. I am not a scripter, but I see that issue, the practical issue of whether a better system is possible as the barrier to resolving this. Not whether someone has paid or not, or what is or isn't currently in the TOS - I just don't see how those points have any relevance.

---

 It may seem simple to you but not to me.  Your vision of that part of SL is a community of people that are free to travel the mainland by foot or vehicle without meeting obstrucitons like security.

Other people's SL vision does not match yours.  Some people want privacy at home for themselves and friends only.  That doesn't make them anit social.  Denying someone their vision by saying to move to a private estate, when they pay for premium membership is wrong.

It is your vision and your SL.

Difficulties instituting zoning may not be as difficult or distruptive as you say.  They might develop special software and scripting calls for the mainland servers that would be used for the open zones, thus not disturbing the rest of SL. They've already demonstrated time again that

[Aethelwine]

---

Rhonda Huntress wrote:

---

Aethelwine wrote

The issue of interest is what set of rules, would work best for Linden Lab, for Second life, for owners and for explorers.

---

For LL, ignoring the issue and calling it a resident to resident dispute seems to be what they are going with.

What is best for the explorers and what is best for the land owners has been laid out in this and many other threads already.  These are at odds, obviously.

What's best for SL?  I honestly don't know.  But it would need to work at every altitude and be applicable whether you owned 512sqm or 4 contiguous mainland sims.  Right now, barring any other compelling reason, I tend to side with the Golden Rule; whoever pays the gold makes the rules.

---

The current system of banlines works differently at different heights, so I don't see why any solution cannot also involve a similar formula.

It is far from obvious the interests of explorers and land owners are at odds. As the survey indicates, as land prices indicate the interests of land owners and those of explorers are the same. The money that goes in to mainland is largely from people wanting to make use of the public access routes, the number of people using instant death orbs a tiny minority, mainland land owners are by a big majority explorers.

As you and Emerald say who pays wins,,,, except that leads to the opposite conclusion to the one you are drawing.

[Aethelwine]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

 It may seem simple to you but not to me.  Your vision of that part of SL is a community of people that are free to travel the mainland by foot or vehicle without meeting obstrucitons like security.

Other people's SL vision does not match yours.  Some people want privacy at home for themselves and friends only.  That doesn't make them anit social.  Denying someone their vision by saying to move to a private estate, when they pay for premium membership is wrong.

It is your vision and your SL.

Difficulties instituting zoning may not be as difficult or distruptive as you say.  They might develop special software and scripting calls for the mainland servers that would be used for the open zones, thus not disturbing the rest of SL. They've already demonstrated time again that

---

No that is a poor characterisation of my vision. Infact I am quite open to enhanced security for land owners, more tools for hiding, for protecting designated areas are fine by me.

The problems on mainland are specificaly the aggressive orbs that disrupt vehicles with no warning or justifiable reason (ie that cover a whole parcel and aren't just around builds), and the low level banlines set up on waterways next to protected waterways in such a way they become traps for vehicles. Both ot those are anti-social, it fits the definition perfectly. They disrupt the enjoyment of mainland for the majority of paying land owners who are paying a premium to use those waterways and to go exploring.

What I want is to relook at the way the system works so Mainland can better achieve what people as a whole want. Land owners and explorers alike. If the balance can be better achieved than now. Mainland will draw in and sustain ongoing interest and investment. The way money is spent and the way people make use of their orbs both indicate doing this would be something only a tiny minority might object to.

 

[Alwin Alcott]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

. They disrupt the enjoyment of mainland for the majority of paying land owners who are paying a premium to use those waterways and to go exploring.

 

---

this is simply not true, you don't pay for use of other mainland than your own.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

 It may seem simple to you but not to me.  Your vision of that part of SL is a community of people that are free to travel the mainland by foot or vehicle without meeting obstrucitons like security.

Other people's SL vision does not match yours.  Some people want privacy at home for themselves and friends only.  That doesn't make them anit social.  Denying someone their vision by saying to move to a private estate, when they pay for premium membership is wrong.

It is your vision and your SL.

Difficulties instituting zoning may not be as difficult or distruptive as you say.  They might develop special software and scripting calls for the mainland servers that would be used for the open zones, thus not disturbing the rest of SL. They've already demonstrated time again that

---

No that is a poor characterisation of my vision. Infact I am quite open to enhanced security for land owners, more tools for hiding, for protecting designated areas are fine by me.

The problems on mainland are specifically the aggressive orbs that disrupt vehicles with no warning or justifiable reason (ie that cover a whole parcel and aren't just around builds), and the low level banlines set up on waterways next to protected waterways in such a way they become traps for vehicles. Both ot those are anti-social, it fits the definition perfectly.

They disrupt the enjoyment of mainland for the majority of paying land owners who are paying a premium to use those waterways and to go exploring.

What I want is to relook at the way the system works so Mainland can better achieve what people as a whole want. Land owners and explorers alike. If the balance can be better achieved than now. Mainland will draw in and sustain ongoing interest and investment. The way money is spent and the way people make use of their orbs both indicate doing this would be something only a tiny minority might object to.

 

---

RE: the bolded part

You don't pay for their land and they are premium members too.  Take a look at the premium benefits as published and you don't see anything about rights for members that are vehicle owners and explorers on other peoples land.  Under the current TOS, the ONLY waterways or even land open to all is that land that the landowner wants to open and that LL owns. 

I too would love to see LL strike a balance that makes mainland better for all by having basic zoning.  I don't think the people that use ban lines or security orbs are a tiny minority though.  

BTW, for those that don't know, there is at least one HUD that tells you exactly where ban lines are. 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

---

Don't get me wrong.  As a sailor myself, I agree it would be better for people not to use ban lines and security orbs unless it is absolutely needed to prevent griefers or harassment.  However I defend the right of

any

land owner to use them because

they pay for the land, not vehicle owners

, and have the right (privilege, ability, whatever) to use them under the TOS.

---

What part of the TOS allows a landowner to teleport someone without warning?

---

What part of the ToS disallows a landowner to teleport someone without warning?

I am not saying that teleporting without warning is ok. It's not. I am pointing out that it is not disallowed by the ToS, so your post is useless.

[Aethelwine]

Land values say otherwise. People don't pay tens of L$ a m^2 for land without access to transport routes

[Phil Deakins]

---

Alwin Alcott wrote:

---

Aethelwine wrote:

. They disrupt the enjoyment of mainland for the majority of paying land owners who are paying a premium to use those waterways and to go exploring.

 

---

this is simply not true, you don't pay for use of other mainland than your own.

---

I completely agree with that. Anyone is free to use the waterways and go exploring. Nobody pays for that. Landowners pay for their own patch of land, and that's all.

[Aethelwine]

It is people that use less than 10 second warning orbs that are a tiny minority. As are those that set up their Ban lines in such a way that they disrupt navigation. I can list the latter class of people on one hand. The SIM below Fudo being one of the worst examples. Tiny minorities that affect the land values and investments of all the linked land owners.

[Phil Deakins]

You conclusion is mistaken. Land values do tend to reflect some things, but not what you said. They reflect such things as views (that's the most common - by the water), proximity of roads, and such. You may pay more for a piece of land where you can step straight from it onto a road, but you are not paying to explore and travel on the road. You are paying for the convenience of stepping straight onto a road. That's all. Perhaps it's because you can to get in your car on your land and drive straight onto the road. That's just you spending extra money for that convenience.

Incidentally, when you buy that piece of land, you pay a user, not LL. Users can't charge you for the ability to expore and travel. So you don't pay for those things. You pay LL the tier/rent each month, but that cost is the same everywhere, and doesn't include anything about exploring and traveling.

[Phil Deakins]

I'm in red.

---

Aethelwine wrote:

It is people that use less than 10 second warning orbs that are a tiny minority. 

Fine. Also, 10 seconds is ample time to just keep on going without interuption.

As are those that set up their Ban lines in such a way that they disrupt navigation. 

Banlines disrupt. You can see them in advance, of course, but even that's a distruption because you have to turn away from them. So I don't see what you are getting at unless you are of the opinion that no movement should be disrupted at all.

I can list the latter class of people on one hand. The SIM below Fudo being one of the worst examples. Tiny minorities that affect the land values and investments of all the linked land owners.

That's unfortunate but, yes, a proliferation of banlines would have the effect of lowering the nearby land values. However, that's life in SL. When we buy mainland, we know that what is good now, might not be so good in the future. It's a chance we all take when we buy mainland.

---

 

[Darrius Gothly]

Here's an idea that should be fairly easy to implement AND will protect Land Owner's rights AND will let "Explorers" fly right on through your Land:

Add a "Land Option" called "Display Parcel Objects for Group Members Only". If that option is enabled then anyone NOT in the Land Group will see a totally empty Parcel, devoid of all objects, avatars, media .. everything. The Viewer will simply display what appears to be a completely empty Parcel .. as though the Parcel Object list was empty.

Of course the traveller won't be able to Rez anything or have any other means of interacting with objects or avatars on the Parcel, but they prolly won't stick around long either because .. hey .. it's just an empty plot of land. Right?

[Phil Deakins]

So you're flying along across this 'empty' plot of land, minding your own business, when you suddenly come to a bone-crunching stop! What will you do? Explore this invisible force field to see how far it extends, and/or what shape it is, thereby staying longer than you would have done if you could have seen it was there in the first place? Maybe you'd let out some well-chosen expletives against the owner, for making you crash when you're perfectly happy to fly around any visible obstruction.

Just a thought

[Aethelwine]

That argument doesn't work or land values by a protected view would be the same as they are for a protected waterway.

You are right that tier is the same. But that is not my point.

People regularly pay 50, 000-300, 000 L $ for land with good transport links. A system where a bad neighbour can affect the value of their land with aggressive security systems is not in any land owners interest except those interested in abusing the system for extortion

[Phil Deakins]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

That argument doesn't work or land values by a protected view would be the same as they are for a protected waterway.

You are right that tier is the same. But that is not my point.

People regularly pay 50, 000-300, 000 L $ for land with good transport links. A system where a bad neighbour can affect the value of their land with aggressive security systems is not in any land owners interest except those interested in abusing the system for extortion

---

Land values reflect what people are willing to pay. People are willing to pay more for waterfront and roadside land than other land. My argument works perfectly, especially when you remember that we are discussion your idea that landowners pay for the abilities to explore and move around mainland without interference. We don't. We pay only for the land, and nothing else.

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

So you're flying along across this 'empty' plot of land, minding your own business, when you suddenly come to a bone-crunching stop! What will you do? Explore this invisible force field to see how far it extends, and/or what shape it is, thereby staying longer than you would have done if you could have seen it was there in the first place? Maybe you'd let out some well-chosen expletives against the owner, for making you crash when you're perfectly happy to fly around any visible obstruction.

Just a thought

---

The only reason you stop now is because your Viewer says "according to the data set I received there's an object in the way." But if the Sim Server has lied to your Viewer and said there is nothing there, you won't stop, you won't come to a bone crunching halt. You'll just fly right on through without ever realizing that some other virtual model of that space had things in it.

The model you see? The dataset your Viewer uses? Empty and devoid.

"Groove on down .. groove on down the roooooooh ode..."

[Qie Niangao]

Well, actually... the physics engine on the sim will notice the collision and halt progress through the parcel, even if the viewer can't see what it's run up against.

That's not to say the sim logic couldn't change to make phantom the traveller and vehicle for the extent of the parcel (or maybe phantom except for the ground surface). There's all sorts of special-case code in the sim already for sat-upon objects, so making it all parcel-setting-specific wouldn't need to be a big problem.

Unfortunately, though, this all assumes the landowner would use this sparkly new feature instead of the good ol' tried-and-true methods of torturing would-be passersby. Some might. But as we know, the vast, vast majority of landowners don't do any of this, so the target here is very selectively self-sampled for paranoia and bloodlust. These are mostly the people who would take your child's ball if it strayed into their back yards, out of pure cussedness.

Practically speaking, at this point, the only real hope of improving the situation is to continue in threads like this reinforcing the fact that obsessively demanding "property" rights over virtual "land" is simply bonkers.

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

Well, actually... the physics engine on the sim will notice the collision and halt progress through the parcel, even if the viewer can't see what it's run up against.

That's not to say the sim logic couldn't change to make phantom the traveller and vehicle for the extent of the parcel (or maybe phantom except for the ground surface). There's all sorts of special-case code in the sim already for sat-upon objects, so making it all parcel-setting-specific wouldn't need to be a big problem.

Unfortunately, though, this all assumes the landowner would use this sparkly new feature instead of the good ol' tried-and-true methods of torturing would-be passersby. Some might. But as we know, the vast,

vast

majority of landowners don't do any of this, so the target here is very selectively self-sampled for paranoia and bloodlust. These are mostly the people who would take your child's ball if it strayed into their back yards, out of pure cussedness.

Practically speaking, at this point, the only real hope of improving the situation is to continue in threads like this reinforcing the fact that obsessively demanding "property" rights over virtual "land" is simply bonkers.

---

"Cussedness" LOL Cain't say zackly how many yarns itz been since i heared that'un! But it fits!

So really the proper solution would be to implement a new LSL library call:

  llTeleportToHellForever ...

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

---

Don't get me wrong.  As a sailor myself, I agree it would be better for people not to use ban lines and security orbs unless it is absolutely needed to prevent griefers or harassment.  However I defend the right of

any

land owner to use them because

they pay for the land, not vehicle owners

, and have the right (privilege, ability, whatever)

to use them under the TOS.

---

What part of the TOS allows a landowner to teleport someone without warning?

---

What part of the ToS disallows a landowner to teleport someone without warning?

I am not saying that teleporting without warning is ok. It's not. I am pointing out that it is not disallowed by the ToS, so your post is useless.

---

As you can see, the post from Amethyst that I was replying to was specifically concerning "rights under the TOS" - in other words explicit or enumerated rights. She based her argument that security orbs are allowed based on the enumerated right to control access to your lot - however, that says nothing about teleportation because that involves what happens to an avatar when they are no longer on your lot. Therefore, this particular enumerated right wouldn't apply to the act of forced teleportation so I was wondering which of the other enumerated rights forced teleportation would fall under, if any.

And that is how language works - assuming, of course, what is said is actually based on a logical argument instead of being a random string of words, and we all know that doesn't always happen.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

however, that says nothing about teleportation because that involves what happens to an avatar when they are

no longer

on your lot.

---

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding (I've missed some posts on account of a busy day), but how does teleportation apply to avatars after they've left your lot?

llTeleportAgentHome - as I'm sure you know - only works if triggered from a script with permission (from the landowner - either a directly owned object or group-deeded one) over the land that the targetted avatar is on. If the avatar isn't there (or has just left), calling llTeleportAgentHome will do nothing.

Permission, I feel, is a strong word in demonstrating Amethyst's point. If scripts didn't have permission to do this, then arguments about whether the ToS explicitly covers or doesn't cover this function would hold more water. There's an argument (possibly) to be made that some functions can be used to grief regardless of permissions limitations, but...

• Can a landowner be guilty of griefing their own parcel (minus arguments about sim resources, ad farming, spam - these don't apply)?
• Is using this function - in-line with the limitations within the Wiki - an act of griefing?
• Given this functions limited use-case, would LL allow landowners continued access to this function (in the wake of say, Experiences, that allows finer control of teleportation) despite this potential for 'griefing'?

I don't think I can answer any of these questions in the affirmative, but you may have another perspective.

(To add, bouncing off of some of Darrius's posts - maybe there's a case for arguing that this permission shouldn't be granted the instant an avatar arrives on-parcel, could have a delay applied between trigger and processing, or some other solution that doesn't presently exist to try and exclude avatars moving at speed/altitude/etc.)

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

however, that says nothing about teleportation because that involves what happens to an avatar when they are

no longer

on your lot.

---

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding (I've missed some posts on account of a busy day), but how does teleportation apply to avatars after they've left your lot?

llTeleportAgentHome

- as I'm sure you know - only works if triggered from a script with

permission

(from the landowner - either a directly owned object or group-deeded one) over the land that the targetted avatar is on.

Permission, I feel, is a strong word in demonstrating Amethyst's point. If scripts didn't have

permission

to do this, then arguments about whether the ToS explicitly covers or doesn't cover this function would hold more water. There's an argument (possibly) to be made that

some functions

can be used to grief regardless of permissions limitations, but... can a landowner be guilty of griefing their own parcel? Is using this function - in-line with the limitations within the Wiki - an act of griefing? I don't think so, but you may have another perspective.

(To add, bouncing off of some of Darrius's posts - maybe there's a case for arguing that this permission shouldn't be granted the instant an avatar arrives on-parcel, could have a delay applied between trigger and processing, or some other solution that doesn't presently exist to try and exclude avatars moving at speed/altitude/etc.)

---

The permission I was referring to was that of the avatar being teleported. A security orb can teleport an avatar home when the avatar enters that particular parcel even though the avatar may not realize they're even entering the parcel. Even if you turn lot boundaries on they're useless if you're in the air or water covers them.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

---

Don't get me wrong.  As a sailor myself, I agree it would be better for people not to use ban lines and security orbs unless it is absolutely needed to prevent griefers or harassment.  However I defend the right of

any

land owner to use them because

they pay for the land, not vehicle owners

, and have the right (privilege, ability, whatever)

to use them under the TOS.

---

What part of the TOS allows a landowner to teleport someone without warning?

---

What part of the ToS disallows a landowner to teleport someone without warning?

I am not saying that teleporting without warning is ok. It's not. I am pointing out that it is not disallowed by the ToS, so your post is useless.

---

As you can see, the post from Amethyst that I was replying to was specifically concerning "rights under the TOS" - in other words

explicit

or

enumerated

rights. She based her argument that security orbs are allowed based on the

enumerated right

to control access to your lot - however, that says nothing about teleportation because that involves what happens to an avatar when they are

no longer

on your lot. Therefore, this particular enumerated right wouldn't apply to the act of forced teleportation so I was wondering which of the

other

enumerated rights forced teleportation would fall under, if any.

And

that

is how language works - assuming, of course, what is said is actually based on a logical argument instead of being a random string of words, and we all know

that

doesn't always happen.

---

Your splitting hairs.

The TOS says nothing about most everything in SL.  The TOS explicitly allows certain things and forbids certain other things.  Everything not forbidden is allowed.

For example: Where for does the TOS allow pixel bumping?  Where does it allow you to 'kill' someone resulting in a TP home?

Further, there would not be the scripting ability to eject or teleport home if LL objected to that.

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

---

Your splitting hairs.

The TOS says nothing about most everything in SL.  The TOS explicitly allows certain things and forbids certain other things. 

Everything not forbidden is allowed.

For example: Where for does the TOS allow pixel bumping?  Where does it allow you to 'kill' someone resulting in a TP home?

Further, there would not be the scripting ability to eject or teleport home if LL objected to that.

 

---

Think very carefully - are you sure you want to say that? Are you really, really sure?