Jump to content

Revoke the use of Security Orbs in Mainland


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2750 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

There have been a few erroneous posts in this thread about what mainland was intended to be. What I'm wondering now is how long those who wrote them have been in SL. I.e. are they stating from their memories of back then, or are they just imagining it, because it would be more suitable for their desires. I favour the latter :)

Back in 2007, I had a parcel that was eventually totally surrounded by banlines. The only way I could get to it was to TP in. There was no knowledge at that time of what mainland "was intended to be".

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

Don't forget that you can already set a parcel to be pay-for-entry. It's included in the land's facilities - or it used to be. It doesn't have the sort of options that you suggested though.

yes. Is not used bc we the visitor have to pay before we can enter the sim/parcel. A pay unsighted proposition

the idea is that we the owner/organiser want you to come, to see what we offer, and then we monetarise you once we got you in our event/venue. the law of Arkwright (:

is the same with a flyover in practice. Given pay before you flyover or fly round, then people will fly round. Alternative: is free to enter my (air)space. Is not free to stay here

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

 

In real life, your property rights don't extend to the airspace above your land higher than you can reasonably use. Given that gravity is optional in Second Life this makes things trickier and I have no problem with security systems that allow a reasonable travel time since people build skyboxes, but Mainland was specifically intended to be a shared space that could be traveled through - in fact in its early years you couldn't even teleport directly and
had
to fly around to reach certain places.

In RL you are right, because of government restrictions that all must adhere to.  No such restrictions exist in SL.  Also it is not practical for people to use all the space above there land as it's impossible to have skyboxes and building platforms and such there.  In SL all the airspace is usable by the land owner.

The early days of SL have past and technology for teleporting changed.  I have never seen anything written by LL supporting your theory of that "Mainland was specifically intended to be a shared space that could be traveled through".  If they thought that everyone would still have to teleport to telehubs and then travel where they wanted to go on foot or by flying.

Then why did they write the parcel access code so that turning off public access only worked up to a certain height when it would have been simpler to just have it go all the way up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


wherorangi wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

Don't forget that you can already set a parcel to be pay-for-entry. It's included in the land's facilities - or it used to be. It doesn't have the sort of options that you suggested though.

yes. Is not used bc we the visitor have to pay before we can enter the sim/parcel. A pay unsighted proposition

the idea is that we the owner/organiser want you to come, to see what we offer, and then we monetarise you once we got you in our event/venue.
the law of Arkwright
(:

is the same with a flyover in practice. Given pay before you flyover or fly round, then people will fly round. Alternative: is free to enter my (air)space. Is not free to stay here

 

Is that the Arkwright who had a nephew called Granville? :D

It certainly sounds like him, and, if it is, I'm amazed that you know him. I am sure that he is a cousin of Auntie Wainright - both my heroes :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

There have been a few erroneous posts in this thread about what mainland was intended to be. What I'm wondering now is how long those who wrote them have been in SL. I.e. are they stating from their memories of back then, or are they just imagining it, because it would be more suitable for their desires. I favour the latter
:)

Back in 2007, I had a parcel that was eventually totally surrounded by banlines. The only way I could get to it was to TP in. There was no knowledge at that time of what mainland "
was intended to be
".

They'd have had to be explicit ban lines - in other words, somebody didn't like you, personally. I wonder how that happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

 

In real life, your property rights don't extend to the airspace above your land higher than you can reasonably use. Given that gravity is optional in Second Life this makes things trickier and I have no problem with security systems that allow a reasonable travel time since people build skyboxes, but Mainland was specifically intended to be a shared space that could be traveled through - in fact in its early years you couldn't even teleport directly and
had
to fly around to reach certain places.

In RL you are right, because of government restrictions that all must adhere to.  No such restrictions exist in SL.  Also it is not practical for people to use all the space above there land as it's impossible to have skyboxes and building platforms and such there.  In SL all the airspace is usable by the land owner.

The early days of SL have past and technology for teleporting changed.  I have never seen anything written by LL supporting your theory of that "Mainland was specifically intended to be a shared space that could be traveled through".  If they thought that everyone would still have to teleport to telehubs and then travel where they wanted to go on foot or by flying.

Then why did they write the parcel access code so that turning off public access only worked up to a certain height when it would have been simpler to just have it go all the way up?

Perhaps to allow flying but you'll need to ask them. The bottom line is the quote that Amethyst posted on the previous page ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


wherorangi wrote:

like tie it to Avatar Complexity. If over some limit then can pay X amount to enter the rest of the sim. Or change outfit to under the free limit. Or go home

I quite like this. 

It would be even better if the script could say something like: "To stay on this parcel for one hour, please pay L$63, and here's the breakdown of what each item you're wearing contributes to that cost...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Then why did they write the parcel access code so that turning off public access only worked up to a certain height when it would have been simpler to just have it go all the way up?

i tend to agree with this

and about what the intent originally was way back in the beginning. Which was that mainland would be a shared space in principle

can see this ethos in the lands held by the earliest people. On the original sims where is still ancient oldbie owned parcels then these parcels are rarely banlined. And many of them also allow rez

what LL-dev restrictions have come in over the years since has been pretty much anti-griefer measures

+

also was pretty much when the First Land programme come in that the idea of My Parcel My Castle My Kingdom took hold in the minds of this then second wave of new residents/settlers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Qie Niangao wrote:


wherorangi wrote:

like tie it to Avatar Complexity. If over some limit then can pay X amount to enter the rest of the sim. Or change outfit to under the free limit. Or go home

I quite like this. 

It would be even better if the script could say something like: "To stay on this parcel for one hour, please pay L$63,
and here's the breakdown of what each item you're wearing contributes to that cost
...."

Okay .. but first we need an "I LIKE THIS" button on forum posts. I'd start by using it with ^^^this^^^ and the thoughts leading into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

There have been a few erroneous posts in this thread about what mainland was intended to be. What I'm wondering now is how long those who wrote them have been in SL. I.e. are they stating from their memories of back then, or are they just imagining it, because it would be more suitable for their desires. I favour the latter
:)

Back in 2007, I had a parcel that was eventually totally surrounded by banlines. The only way I could get to it was to TP in. There was no knowledge at that time of what mainland "
was intended to be
".

They'd have had to be explicit ban lines - in other words, somebody didn't like
you, personally.
I wonder how that happened.

Actually that's true. I had a parcel on the other side of their plot as well, and I was very friendly with one of the 3 girls who shared their plot. But someone interfered with their house and they decided that it was probably me. It wasn't me, but that didn't matter to them.

As I've been writing this, I've remembered that they didn't put banlines up. Instead they came to own land that surrounded one of my plots (I had quite a few in the area), and I was banned from their land. So it was just me :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:


wherorangi wrote:

.
the law of Arkwright
(:

 

Is that the Arkwright who had a nephew called Granville?
:D

It certainly sounds like him, and, if it is, I'm amazed that you know him. I am sure that he is a cousin of Auntie Wainright - both my heroes
:)

Open All Hours and Fools and Horses is still on our TV. And Coronation St, Last of the Summer Wine, Waiting for God, and all the English whodunnits, yada yada. We are more English than the English in lots of ways (:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


wherorangi wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:


wherorangi wrote:

.
the law of Arkwright
(:

 

Is that the Arkwright who had a nephew called Granville?
:D

It certainly sounds like him, and, if it is, I'm amazed that you know him. I am sure that he is a cousin of Auntie Wainright - both my heroes
:)

Open All Hours and Fools and Horses is still on our TV. And Coronation St, Last of the Summer Wine, Waiting for God, and all the English whodunnits, yada yada. We are more English than the English in lots of ways (:

Then you'll know who Auntie Wainright is then :) What you may not know is that the Auntie Wainright actress (Jean Alexander) was in Coronation Street for many years. Although, on reflection, you probably know that too lol.

They are still being shown here. They have to be with all the cable channels that need to be filled with whatever they can get hold of. Coronation Street never stopped though. It's still being made every week. I've watched a few old Last Of The Summer Wine episodes very recently. My recording system records suggestions for me, and it's been recording some of those recently, so I watch them when I'm left with half an hour before I go to bed. If I were left with 45 minutes, I'd watch one of the crime dramas that I have set to record, but I'm sometimes left with 30 minutes, so they come in very useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Rhonda Huntress wrote:

One would need to be either a mind reader or Phillip Linden to ever know the actual intent of any original SL policy.  Anything else is speculation. 

Philip Linden used to talk about it quite a lot in the beginning at the Town Hall meetings

he said in one Town Hall way back in 2003 about conflict between residents when there werent any parcel controls at all at the time, in response to a question: What are LL going to do about it ?

he said that conflict is normal. That without conflict there is no life

that went down like a lead bucket with the people who had gone over the wall to homestead the then badlands

and not long after this LL put out a roadmap for UI parcel controls. And in the meantime added SendHome to LSL as a stop gap measure, which never stopped

and in January 2004, the parcel/tiers system as we have it now, came in

and First Land come in about July 2004

 

edt: typos

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


wherorangi wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

Don't forget that you can already set a parcel to be pay-for-entry. It's included in the land's facilities - or it used to be. It doesn't have the sort of options that you suggested though.

yes. Is not used bc we the visitor have to pay before we can enter the sim/parcel. A pay unsighted proposition

the idea is that we the owner/organiser want you to come, to see what we offer, and then we monetarise you once we got you in our event/venue. the law of Arkwright (:

is the same with a flyover in practice. Given pay before you flyover or fly round, then people will fly round. Alternative: is free to enter my (air)space. Is not free to stay here

 

I've seen a variation of this. The majority of the parcel was set as 'group only' with a L$500 fee to join. The landing point was parcelled separately, probably about an 8m x 8m spot somewhere within the main parcel. Anyone could land there and look through the banlines to see what was going on before paying their membership. Not really applicable to flying over, but workable for general access.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Kelli May wrote:

I've seen a variation of this. The majority of the parcel was set as 'group only' with a L$500 fee to join. The landing point was parcelled separately, probably about an 8m x 8m spot somewhere within the main parcel. Anyone could land there and look through the banlines to see what was going on before paying their membership

 

yes. I have seen a dancehall that is set up like that

they had a open day one time. So i went in for a nosey. Was quite a nice build

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But getting to what is going on now it's interesting when you read the Knowledge Base. LINK

 

Script Use

You can use scripted objects to enhance your land ownership tools. Generally, such scripts should:

  • Provide adequate warning to the undesired Resident.
  • Only work within the property lines (this includes projectiles that cannot operate beyond the parcel boundaries).
  • Not be excessive in the removal of the unwanted Resident. Pushing an avatar off the property or teleporting them home is generally acceptable; intentionally applying a script to disrupt someone's Second Life connection or online status is not allowed.

Scripts or no scripts, you cannot use land ownership as a way to unfairly restrict another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms.

 

I don't think the KB has the same force of law as the TOS, the CS and other LL Official documents, but still here we have the phrase. "provide adequate warning."  So how much time is "adequate?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wiki goes a little further:

"The property right cannot be disputed, however a too fast teleporting from a parcel can be considered an abuse" citing Resolved Questions in Abuse and Griefing , I am not sure why they include that citation.

I would take that to mean that an orb set (to cover full parcel height and not just around a skybox?) such that it doesn't give sufficient time for a vehicle to pass through the parcel is Abuse Reportable.

I have never tried to do that, but I can't really see any other reasonable interpretation of those words.

If they did enforce that based on reports, it would strike the right balance between privacy and the freedoms they talk about for people to explore mainland in vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Editors Notes on that page give some useful advice: "

Note from editors

While creating articles for Second Life Geography project, we had to travel large distances and teleport many times. People all over the world use Second Life, so there are many different points of view. Some residents are like tohse guys from movies that point the shootgun to you and shout Get out of my property!, while others are very friendly and say Feel welcome here and enjoy your stay. Talking about unwanted visitors, more then 90% are residents without any bad intention and only 1% might be persons that like to make trouble.

If you want to block access on your parcel, please take in consideration the follows:

  1. If you decide to use ban lines, please think about building a fence or a wall on the ground. This way, people will see and avoid to enter your parcel. This system is very effective. No vehicle will hit your ban lines and no vehilce will get desintegrated.
  2. For airplanes that might smash into ban lines, think about building something in air, close to the maximum altitude of a ban line, in corners of your parcel. This way, airplanes and helicopters will see the obstacle and avoid your land.
  3. If you decide to use an entity orb, please think that the time between the moment when an avatar enters your parcel and the moment that avatar will be ejected must be significant. An amount of time higher then 10 seconds will let the missfortuned traveler to run out of your land. Think aboutt the time needed to fly away from that parcel.
  4. Also, try to avoid teleporting avatars home. Think about sending them to a public parcel (like Protected Land: parks, waterways, a road or a parcel of Abandoned Land), close to you, so they can continue their trip.
  5. If you use an entity orb that protects a skybox, think about a notice, something visible from an airplane. A blinking prim is a good device. People will see and avoid this.
  6. Think that an avatar doesn't know when it entered your parcel and what way to fly away from it. So, if your parcel is very big (so it is needed more then 15 sconds to get accross), teleporting to a nearby parcel of protected land or abandoned land is a good solution.
  7. If your parcel includes water, think about using something visible, like a buoy (device used to mark shallow waters and water obstacles). A sailor will see this and try to avoid your land.
  8. Think about restricting visibility (see above) as a better solution. Even with the most advanced security restrictions, somebody can still spy your property, using camera controls.
  9. If you own land on a sim that has no contact to other sims, please consider to block teleport entry to your sim or to divert teleport entry to a place surrounded by ban lines or to a skybox without access to land. This way, the unwanted visitor will have time to find another destination.
  10. If you own land on a private sim and don't want to be visited, one good solution is to fix teleport entry to a neutral parcel, like the rental box or channels/mountains used to separate parcels. This way random teleporters will land there and not into your home.
  11. Other moderate solutions are using obstacles and doors that operate only for therir owners, combined with restricted visibility (see above).

Think how you should feel to be the other person. If you are the land owner, think about how would you feel to smash your vehicle and to be ejected from that parcel. If you are a traveler, think how would you feel if somebody unwanted enters your parcel and disturbs you."

I particularly like the idea of using markers like walls to show where banlines are. It is so infuriating when someone digs out water next to a linden waterway and puts banlines up so the only way to navigate them safely is by following the parcel boundaries indicated on the minimap of an alternative viewer. A few inconsiderate land owners spoil the whole waterway for their neighbours and other explorers. When a neighbour did that next to me, I put a wall up to mark their banline and it made it much easier to avoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

 

In real life, your property rights don't extend to the airspace above your land higher than you can reasonably use. Given that gravity is optional in Second Life this makes things trickier and I have no problem with security systems that allow a reasonable travel time since people build skyboxes, but Mainland was specifically intended to be a shared space that could be traveled through - in fact in its early years you couldn't even teleport directly and
had
to fly around to reach certain places.

In RL you are right, because of government restrictions that all must adhere to.  No such restrictions exist in SL.  Also it is not practical for people to use all the space above there land as it's impossible to have skyboxes and building platforms and such there.  In SL all the airspace is usable by the land owner.

The early days of SL have past and technology for teleporting changed.  I have never seen anything written by LL supporting your theory of that "Mainland was specifically intended to be a shared space that could be traveled through".  If they thought that everyone would still have to teleport to telehubs and then travel where they wanted to go on foot or by flying.

Then why did they write the parcel access code so that turning off public access only worked up to a certain height when it would have been simpler to just have it go all the way up?

 

Most likely so people could protect their privacy below that but allow flights above IF they chose to do so.  If LL did want it to be a rule though, why isn't in the TOS and why aren't they removing security orbs?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Aethelwine wrote:

The
goes a little further:

"The property right cannot be disputed, however
a too fast teleporting from a parcel can be considered an abuse
" citing
, I am not sure why they include that citation.

I would take that to mean that an orb set (to cover full parcel height and not just around a skybox?) such that it doesn't give sufficient time for a vehicle to pass through the parcel is Abuse Reportable.

I have never tried to do that, but I can't really see any other reasonable interpretation of those words.

If they did enforce that based on reports, it would strike the right balance between privacy and the freedoms they talk about for people to explore mainland in vehicles.

Any resident can write a wiki page.  I tried to follow your link to Resolved Questions in Abuse and Griefing to see if a Linden wrote it and kept getting an error.  Please fix it.

I did search the wiki for that and could find nothing.  Also searched for Abuse and Griefing and that page said:  "These articles are part of the Second Life Old Knowledge Base. They are no longer maintained by Linden Lab. Use at your own risk! For additional up-to-date information on Abuse and Griefing, see the Official Knowledge Base."

The current Official Knowledge Base says nothing of the sort that I could find.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article is written by Anaimfinity, the head of Second Life Geography project. And yes the citation is strange, which is why I mentioned it and didn't just pretend it wasn't there.

But Perrie has already quoted the knowledge base and it says the same thing.

"You can use scripted objects to enhance your land ownership tools. Generally, such scripts should:

  • Provide adequate warning to the undesired Resident."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote: 

I don't think the KB has the same force of law as the TOS, the CS and other LL Official documents, but still here we have the phrase. "provide adequate warning."  So how much time is "adequate?"

is pretty interesting when stuff gets written by a Linden which this article was. What does it imply and stuff like that

+

i think "adequate warning" could be bound back to the ToS, situationally kinda sorta

i think tho that below the parcel banline (and no-script limit) height (about 70m above terrain) then "adequate time" is effectively zero

zero meaning that for a vehicle, the most lethal anti-vehicle UI parcel setting combination: banline + object entry, is obtainable. In zerotime: we are unseated, access banned and our vehicle still under power can continue on without us (if not parcel returned somewhere eventually)

eta: [Just add here for completeness. It could be argued that the banline warning flash time is greater than zero. However this is not a time limit. Is a distance limit. The slower we go the more time we have to take corrective action]

so I dont think a Abuse Report against a zerotime script orb below 70m would succeed. It might above 70m tho. But then it will maybe not succeed above 200-256m about, as is no real explainable reason why anyone has a need to be flying round in skybox airspace

altho this then do raise: Where does skybox airspace start ?

back when 256m was the skyheight then was kinda understood (was no actual law about it, just kinda accepted) that skybox airspace was above the old cloud level. Cant remember now exactly but I think was about 200m the old clouds

and that most flyers in those days kinda worked on the basis of that when stay over 70m above terrain and below the clouds, then they were pretty much good to go

a indicator for this corridor is I think, the height limit above which the no-scripts parcel setting no longer applies. From a commonsense pov then why would no-scripts above the banline limit not be applied, if not for avatar and vehicle flight

+

"Scripts or no scripts, you cannot use land ownership as a way to unfairly restrict another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms"

i think this one (by origin) has more to do with building out our neighbour (either manual or script) in a way that can be seen as harrassing. From mainland wars I think

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2750 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...