Revoke the use of Security Orbs in Mainland

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

---

Yes really. Maybe you live in some strange state, but I looked up Californian Law and like most places there is a duty of care to Trespassers and just because someone is on your land doesn't make them a Trespasser they have to be aware they are on your land first. Normally done by markers like fencing.

or a line on the ground, like parcel lines. Which you can have show up on the mini-map as well.

---

 

---

Parcel boundaries can't be shown on the mini-map in the viewer provided by Linden Lab. And even if they could be there's no indication that the land is private.

---

They can be on Firestorm and they do show up on the ground if you turn them on. Assume all land not owned by you is private.

See, the complaint is "I can't fly over someone elses land without their security orb kicking me out." That is very much a childish complaint. Along the lines of "Suzie wont let me wear their necklace." or " Bobby wont let me drive their car." or "Joe wont let me in their backyard." You don't have the right to enter anyone elses land. End of discussion. Seriously. They have every right to keep you out.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Pllease link to where it says that using a security orb to eject unwanted people is griefing.

The point is, just because we have the tools at our disposal does not mean we can use them with impunity.

That is exactly what it means, otherwise LL would have banned them.

---

The Knowledge Base article on land security written by Jeremy Linden says that security systems

must give adequate warning.

 

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.

https://community.secondlife.com/t5/English-Knowledge-Base/Managing-your-parcel/ta-p/700113#Section_.6.10

---

Should, not must. Also that is not the Wiki. and who defines adequate? With all the tools available to determine if you are on someone elses land, why is the blame put on the land owner? The parcel name changes as well. You have parcel lines, parcel name, the world map, mini map and the fact that YOU AREN'T ON YOUR OWN LAND to tell you that you are trespassing. Good lord the entitlement in the thread is astounding.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

---

They can be on Firestorm and they do show up on the ground if you turn them on. Assume all land not owned by you is private.

---

Like, say, Excalibur Dreams (152, 35, 501)?

[Qie Niangao]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

[...] The Knowledge Base article on land security written by Jeremy Linden says that security systems

must give adequate warning.

 

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.

https://community.secondlife.com/t5/English-Knowledge-Base/Managing-your-parcel/ta-p/700113#Section_.6.10

---

Well, to be literal about it, that article says they generally should, do things, rather than they must do those things.

The article's recommendations are practically inconsistent, though, inasmuch as teleporting somebody home is a pretty good way to get them disconnected -- not quite as good as a full-fledged crasher, but a step in that direction.

The very existence (and this recommendation) of llTeleportAgentHome() is a perfect counter to any claim that Real Life is somehow related to parcel security. I mean, imagine the Real Life analog of being teleported "home." And the consequences to all-important Private Property when the intruder's whole vehicle goes up in smoke.

Of course, all of this Real Life analog malarkey conveniently omits the parcel "defender" spending the rest of her lifetime in court, defending against Attractive Nuisance-based claims against all future incomes. Except in Texas and Florida, of course, where a bronzed plaque with crossed six-shooters is awarded in accord with the Crotchety Old Man Defense.

[Alwin Alcott]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

    And even if they could be there's no indication that the land is private.

---

All land on the mainland that isn't Linden owned is private

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

---

They can be on Firestorm and they do show up on the ground if you turn them on. Assume all land not owned by you is private.

---

Like, say,

Excalibur Dreams (152, 35, 501)

?

---

Yep.. privately owned land.. I just happen to have my store at that height.. Come down to the ground and you will get booted by my orb though.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Pllease link to where it says that using a security orb to eject unwanted people is griefing.

The point is, just because we have the tools at our disposal does not mean we can use them with impunity.

That is exactly what it means, otherwise LL would have banned them.

---

The Knowledge Base article on land security written by Jeremy Linden says that security systems

must give adequate warning.

 

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.

https://community.secondlife.com/t5/English-Knowledge-Base/Managing-your-parcel/ta-p/700113#Section_.6.10

---

Should, not must. Also that is not the Wiki. and who defines adequate? With all the tools available to determine if you are on someone elses land, why is the blame put on the land owner? The parcel name changes as well. You have parcel lines, parcel name, the world map, mini map and the fact that YOU AREN'T ON YOUR OWN LAND to tell you that you are trespassing. Good lord the entitlement in the thread is astounding.

---

1) It's impossible to see exactly which parcel you're over when you're in the air.

2) The mini-map provided by the owners of the service doesn't show property lines.

2) The parcel name only changes after you enter a parcel.

3) The world map? Seriously? Have you even looked at it?

And yet, after all that, you're "entitled" to teleport someone home instantly as soon as they cross an invisible line.

Sadly, I've long since stopped being astounded by that level of entitlement, but it's still fun to make those people's arguments look bad because they're seldom based on facts.

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Alwin Alcott wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

    And even if they could be there's no indication that the land is private.

---

All

land on the mainland that

isn't Linden owned

is

private

---

1) So, Linden Lab owned land is public?

There's no standard tool to see whether a piece of land is owned by Linden Lab or by someone else.

2) So we shouldn't enter land that is "private" - owned by someone else than Linden Lab?

Hope you don't own a store or a park with that kind of thinking.

[Alwin Alcott]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote

1) So, Linden Lab owned land is public?

There's no standard tool to see whether a piece of land is owned by Linden Lab or by someone else.

2) So we shouldn't enter land that is "private" - owned by someone else than Linden Lab?

Hope you don't own a store or a park with that kind of thinking.

---

@1 it totally doesn't matter if you can see who owns it, it's the task of the one who wants to enter to find out. Plan your route....

and you can enable land colors for the owners... so abandoned and LL land is visitble.

 

@2 Stores and parks clearly invite others explicitly to visit , (but still are private) , thats no reason to think you can go where you want.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Alwin Alcott wrote:

---

---

@1 it totally doesn't matter if you can see who owns it, it's the task of the one who wants to enter to find out. Plan your route....

---

What authority are you basing this statement on?

[Alwin Alcott]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

What authority are you basing this statement on?

---

logic.. landowners can and are allowed to use banlines

landowners can and are allowed to use security scripts

 

...the visiting, flying... passing resident, has to look if it's safe... or is able to pass without ending home or somewhere else.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Alwin Alcott wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

What authority are you basing this statement on?

---

logic.. landowners

can and are allowed

to use banlines

landowners

can and are allowed

to use security scripts

 

...

the visiting, flying... passing resident, has to look if it's safe

... or is able to pass without ending home or somewhere else.

---

Unaccustomed as I am to agreeing with anything that Theresa says, I cannot avoid agreeing with her about 0 second orbs. They are just plain wrong, regardless of whether or not the land-owner has the right to place it.

I highlighted the bit in red to point out that it isn't possible check if a parcel with a 0-second orb is safe before entering it and, when you've entered it, it's too late.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Alwin Alcott wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

What authority are you basing this statement on?

---

logic.. landowners

can and are allowed

to use banlines

landowners

can and are allowed

to use security scripts

 

...

the visiting, flying... passing resident, has to look if it's safe

... or is able to pass without ending home or somewhere else.

---

Unaccustomed as I am to agreeing with anything that Theresa says, I cannot avoid agreeing with her about 0 second orbs. They are just plain wrong, regardless of whether or not the land-owner has the right to place it.

I highlighted the bit in red to point out that it isn't possible check if a parcel with a 0-second orb is safe before entering it and, when you've entered it, it's too late.

---

I just want to point out that i have never said that a zero second orb was acceptable. I know you haven't said i did, but i wanted to make that clear.

This thread is not about zero second orbs it is about the removal of all of them. Which would mean that LL would have to make bann lines go to the ceiling in order for users to not have to worry about griefers.

Sadly, flyers seem to think they own the sky and can do as they want. I have had complaints from people in the past when i had my skybox at 2000m that they got booted by my orb and wanted me to remove it so they could fly without any issues. This is the thought pattern that makes people put up orbs and boot people.

Perhaps if LL made an area they could fly over safely, land LL owned and didn't rent out, things would work better.. Oh, wait, they have roads.. You could fly over the roads..

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

---

I just want to point out that i have never said that a zero second orb was acceptable. I know you haven't said i did, but i wanted to make that clear.

This thread is not about zero second orbs it is about the removal of all of them. Which would mean that LL would have to make bann lines go to the ceiling in order for users to not have to worry about griefers.

---

1) Then why, when I pointed out the Linden Lab knowledge base says that a security system "should" give warning, did you reply immediately negate that statement by saying "it doesn't say must"?

2) This is an exact quote of the first post of this thread:

Seriously, these things are annoying. 

 

Im flying over Mainland see an interesting place, and a blue window tells me to get off the land and gives me 1 second to do so and I'm teleported back to my starting place, now I'm just flying around on flight simulated wings, these things are worse for people who use vehicles. 

 

I don't get this logic of people buying mainland plots and then putting up private access or security orbs, if you value privacy so much please rent a plot at a private sim. 

 

Either revoke the usage of security orbs on Mainland or every one who makes these damn things, make it so that decent timer to allow people to vacate the premises. -.

In another thread I was one of the most vocal about chastising a pilot who was complaining about a security orb with a 30-second warning which they hit while drifting aimlessly and watching a video. My goal is to get people to agree on a set of rules and behaviors instead of yelling at each other about "rights."

 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

 

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

---

I just want to point out that i have never said that a zero second orb was acceptable. I know you haven't said i did, but i wanted to make that clear.

This thread is not about zero second orbs it is about the removal of all of them. Which would mean that LL would have to make bann lines go to the ceiling in order for users to not have to worry about griefers.

---

1) Then why, when I pointed out the Linden Lab knowledge base says that a security system "should" give warning, did you reply immediately negate that statement by saying "it doesn't say must"?

2) This is an exact quote of the first post of this thread:

Seriously, these things are annoying. 

Im flying over Mainland see an interesting place, and a blue window tells me to get off the land and gives me 1 second to do so and I'm teleported back to my starting place, now I'm just flying around on flight simulated wings, these things are worse for people who use vehicles. 

I don't get this logic of people buying mainland plots and then putting up private access or security orbs,

if you value privacy so much please rent a plot at a private sim

. 

If you really don't see the entitlement in the line i bolded...

Either

revoke the usage of security orbs on Mainland

or every one who makes these damn things, make it so that decent timer to allow people to vacate the premises. -.

In another thread I was one of the most vocal about chastising a pilot who was complaining about a security orb with a 30-second warning which they hit while drifting aimlessly and watching a video. My goal is to get people to agree on a set of rules and behaviors instead of yelling at each other about "rights."

 

---

The OP seems to think that Mainland is paid for by LL and everyone is free to use it as they want. That is NOT the case. As has been stated by many many people, your land is ours to do with as you wish. That means you can bann and boot anyone you choose, and yes, that includes LL employees. They can over ride it but you can still add them to the bann list.

If you don't like getting booted by 1 second orbs, please rent a plot at a private sim.

[Aethelwine]

To me the Op seems to think mainland is a series of joined sims where people are encouraged to live together as a community. Somewhere distinct from private sims where people are given more controls (estate rights are avaialble) to live in splendid isolation protected from explorers.

Whilst the tools are available to be anti-social as a land owner, or as an individual, people are encouraged to live socially in the knowledge base article, they are advised not to over do their security settings to balance the rights of explorers against their rights to privacy.

The Op is making the understandable point that those people living on mainland and being anti-social in the use of their security systems are missing the point of mainland, and what is its main attraction and why parcels there can be so desirable that people will spend hundreds of thousands of linden dollars to buy land there, and will pay double or higher rent to live in the areas with access to protected routeways like they do around coastlines and on roads.

I find it incredibly sad when I find someone on my land and they almost invariably rush to apologise for being there and I have to tell them they shouldn't need to apologise because that is what it is there for. Nothing pleases me more than to come onlne and find someone dancing on my land, playing chess, rezzing a boat or car or just hanging out. I have met so many interesting people that way. The small numbers of land owners that don't get what mainland is about spoil it for everyone else.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

---

I just want to point out that i have never said that a zero second orb was acceptable. I know you haven't said i did, but i wanted to make that clear.

This thread is not about zero second orbs it is about the removal of all of them. Which would mean that LL would have to make bann lines go to the ceiling in order for users to not have to worry about griefers.

---

1) Then why, when I pointed out the Linden Lab knowledge base says that a security system "should" give warning, did you reply immediately negate that statement by saying "it doesn't say must"?

---

You didn't say "should". You said "must", which made Drake's response correct.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

The Op is making the understandable point that those people living on mainland and being anti-social in the use of their security systems are missing the point of mainland, and what is its main attraction and why parcels there can be so desirable that people will spend hundreds of thousands of linden dollars to buy land there, and will pay double or higher rent to live in the areas with access to protected routeways like they do around coastlines and on roads.

The OP is making one specific point - that LL should ban the use of security orbs so that s/he can move around mainland as s/he wishes.

I find it incredibly sad when I find someone on my land and they almost invariably rush to apologise for being there and I have to tell them they shouldn't need to apologise because that is what it is there for. Nothing pleases me more than to come onlne and find someone dancing on my land, playing chess, rezzing a boat or car or just hanging out. I have met so many interesting people that way. The small numbers of land owners that don't get what mainland is about spoil it for everyone else.

There are two sides to that. Yes, it's nice and good that you are happy with people using your land in reasonable ways, but I don't think you mean that you are

always

happy when they do it. I won't go into graphic details but there are no doubt times when you really don't want other people around. If there aren't any such times for you, then you should realise and accept that there are such times for a great many landowners.

I disagree that people shouldn't feel the need to apologise for being on your land - especially in your home. People ought to recognise land ownership, and not assume that it's ok for them to wander anywhere they like. So, imo, it's not sad at all that people feel the need to apologise. It's simply politeness in recognition of other people's property.

I also disagree with what appears to be your idea of "

what mainland is about

". If you really do think that mainland is about everyone being able to explore everywhere, then I am absolutely certain that you are in a minority, most of which comprises those who don't own any land at all.

---

The problem was created by LL, of course. From my very beginning, almost 10 years ago, I've thought it was a mistake for LL not to retain ways and paths through mainland sims for people to move around. The roads are very few and very far between.

[Qie Niangao]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote: My goal is to get people to agree on a set of rules and behaviors instead of yelling at each other about "rights."

---

That's interesting. I guess I'm not optimistic that rules would be widely followed, even if we achieved some agreement. If the idea is for Lindens to enforce such rules at this late date, that seems pretty doomed.

In fact, I don't think it would make sense to do it, even though I'm generally in favor of an SL with more social exploration and less isolated "get off my lawn" crankiness. I just think it's too late to expect folks to move from land they're using for one function in order to free it up for another.

The "privacy" illusion can be in little disjoint islands but explorable space only really works in huge, contiguous, uninterrupted spaces -- this all sort of like the Adult Content thing, and we all know how that turned out.

On the other hand, the goal got me thinking that maybe something could be done that would lessen the impact of security systems by creating a sensible, free open source version with all the bells-and-whistles but none of the offensive features, with effective but minimally disruptive settings as default. If the rest is easy enough to configure, most folks would stick with the defaults.

Is that worth a collective development effort? (I think I recall Psyke releasing his source, but no idea if that could still be a sensible starting point if it ever was.)

[Phil Deakins]

Question: All security devices must come with a default setting, so do any come with a minimum amount of boot time? It seems to me that, as long as a device can be set to a minimum boot time, some people will set it at that, simply because they don't want anyone on their property for any length of time at all.

My point is that, provided that devices don't come set to the minimum, what you described is already the norm.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Question:

All security devices must come with a default setting, so do any come with a minimum amount of boot time? It seems to me that, as long as a device can be set to a minimum boot time, some people will set it at that, simply because they don't want anyone on their property for any length of time at all.

My point is that, provided that devices don't come set to the minimum, what you described is already the norm.

---

The default setting is whatever the script writer set it to be.

@Qui - Wouldn't having a fixed "minimum" time actually require the Linden's reworking the eject functions  server side?

As far as open source, I've been using Mango Wilder's Security Script for many years. 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Question:

All security devices must come with a default setting, so do any come with a minimum amount of boot time? It seems to me that, as long as a device can be set to a minimum boot time, some people will set it at that, simply because they don't want anyone on their property for any length of time at all.

My point is that, provided that devices don't come set to the minimum, what you described is already the norm.

---

The default setting is whatever the script writer set it to be.

---

Yes it is, and my question was, does any creator set them to the minimum? My guess is that they don't (I certainly don't).

[Qie Niangao]

Yeah, I'm suggesting that the default warning time be maybe 30 seconds, adjustable down to... I dunno, fifteen seconds or so, without needing to edit the source code itself to get a lower number.

I'm sure some folks think they want that time to be zero, but of course we know that even giving no warning at all doesn't mean the intruder spends no time on the parcel: the llGetAgentList sampling interval for detecting their presence shouldn't be any tighter than, say, fifteen seconds, to be responsible with sim script time. (Possibly agents already known to be in the sim could be tracked with llOverMyLand (or llGetObjectDetails for some other simple geometry) at a somewhat tighter interval, maybe five seconds or so.)

A big win both for sim performance and ease of passage would be a default setting that turns off the security altogether when none of the listed owners (or group members?) are even in the sim. It's true that there are cases where it genuinely matters that all intruders be chased away at all times, but at least it should be something the owner thinks about before enabling.

Most folks really only want the privacy (as you said earlier) for those special times, and would rather not be that crotchety old geezer who fusses about anybody intruding on the pixels they bought and paid for with their own hard-earned L$s, goshdanggit you entitled Millenial whippersnappers!

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

 

Most folks really only want the privacy (as you said earlier) for those special times, and would rather

not

be that crotchety old geezer who fusses about anybody intruding on the pixels they bought and paid for with their own hard-earned L$s, goshdanggit you entitled Millennial whippersnappers!

---

So, you really think it should be ok for random people in SL to just walk into anyones home and use what the land owner paid hard earned USD for?  Seriously? What kind of twisted mentality is that? Would you leave your RL door unlocked and let anyone inside? You wouldn't freak out to find two strangers knocking boots on your bed? I would. Same rules apply to SL.

The number of threads that have been started in the forums by a new user that couldn't understand why they couldn't take the furniture from a house they found scare me. Why anyone would think it is ok to use others items is beyond me.

[Qie Niangao]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

 

Most folks really only want the privacy (as you said earlier) for those special times, and would rather

not

be that crotchety old geezer who fusses about anybody intruding on the pixels they bought and paid for with their own hard-earned L$s, goshdanggit you entitled Millennial whippersnappers!

---

So, you really think it should be ok for random people in SL to just walk into anyones home and use what the land owner paid hard earned USD for?  Seriously? What kind of twisted mentality is that? Would you leave your RL door unlocked and let anyone inside? You wouldn't freak out to find two strangers knocking boots on your bed? I would. Same rules apply to SL.

The number of threads that have been started in the forums by a new user that couldn't understand why they couldn't take the furniture from a house they found scare me. Why anyone would think it is ok to use others items is beyond me.

---

Yep. I contribute a little over a half-sim tier to a group that exists solely for that purpose, and the vast majority of the rest of my land is equally open for anybody to use. Why ever not?

And again, as I've pointed out over and over again, the RL analogy only applies to the extent people want it to apply, and even then it's a huge stretch. For example, imagining for the nonce that I want to pretend my SL land is somehow "like" my RL house, I sure as heck don't get to blast to kingdom come somebody who knocks on the door, nor do I get to vapourise any motor vehicle that tries to turn around in my driveway. SL ain't RL and no amount of make-believe will make it so.