Jump to content

$#@! Ban Lines


Female Winslet
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1755 days.

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

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Sandy Schnook said:

I am more then willing to admit error on my previous response.  I can build with prims, take decent photos, and texture.   Scripting has never been my forte.  I buy what scripts I need or if really pressed, beg an ex to write a quick script for me.

By no means "error"... we're discussing extra-rare esoterica of defunct technologies.

It's like an episode of "Love, Death & Robots."

Not one of the better episodes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

No. Object entry refers to objects without people sitting on them. I used to roll beach balls down the hill at my place, onto abandoned land, they stopped at the parcel line. Same with my hornets or any other moving objects I had rezzed.

However if I rezzed a car, boat, plane, whatever and sat in it and drove onto the same parcel, I was able to enter it no problem.

 

Here's an example of a protected roadway and a protected river. Notice that the parcel options are set to allow object entry. 

Here's Koss sim. 

Koss.thumb.png.a406256e048d6ddde2a6fde79c6d3d3d.png

Ebisu sim protected river. 

Ebisu.png.682d02a640054065143be4f5215c1f9b.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to say. Yeah, object entry should ALWAYS be allowed. it's a ridiculous concept to not, honestly. Especially when (if you're actually, you know, present and half way adept) you can always return objects littered by people on your parcel. Refresh object list, seek objects owned by unknown people, return. Easy peasy. PLUS, it allows for a good time to be had by all.

I am fairly regularly crashed by some guy who has ban lines up when he lives RIGHT ON THE WATERS EDGE! It drives me (and many others I know) absolutely insane. There's no reason for group accessing a piece of land, honestly, unless you're just THAT worried, in which case, get land on a private sim. >:( I am very grump about this issue. LL allowing ban lines and <10 second orbs is killing their revenue and making the grid less desirable for all but the most hard core players. We wants to fly, sale, drive... but these things are literally killing that entire industry. The industry they're supposed to be taking care of. ALSO, at the very least, can we install a system so crossing into a ban line parcel at sim crossing is detected BEFORE crossing and treats like no sim is there, thus just stopping you at the sim crossing at least? PLEASE? I hate losing my vehicles so often. :( Ok. Rant over.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ran into a good example of the problem today. I was doing a GTFO trip. I start descending to the hub to do the delivery. And bammo. Security orb wet with zero warning bounces me out and automatically bans me for three hours. 

The LL policy on security orbs is here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Land_With_Restricted_Access#Linden_official_position

It requires, among other things, that 

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

  • Provide adequate warning to the undesired Resident.

I contacted the land owner and pointed out the TOS. I thought that was rather nice of me, frankly. They responded by telling me that the LL mainland is not an appropriate place for flying and that they wouldn't change a thing. 

I filed an abuse report. Unfortunately, I doubt the lab will take action. There doesn't even seem to be a category for ARing this type of abuse even though it is plainly a violation of LL policy. 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sure would be nice if there were enforced standards on security scripts, but the policy language is awfully soft. In the cited text, "Generally", "should", and "adequate" are all very mushy jello to pin to the wall. Also, that page isn't actually included in the Lab ToS, but seems to be a private resident's page that quoted one particular Linden in 2013.

The ToS is a crazy tangled web of policies now, so there may be something relevant somewhere that really is official, but I'm guessing it isn't much more strongly worded. (It doesn't seem to be covered at all in the official "Mainland Policies" but that's just me looking for keys under the streetlight.)

Still, it's possible ARs might work. Worth a try I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And another one in Mieto region. I was flying down to take a look at where the new land is getting put in place. Suddenly I got TP'd back home without any warning. Now instead of checking out the new stuff going on, I'm logging off frustrated. I'm hoping LL will take care of this, but I'm getting incredibly frustrated by people who feel it is their Linden-given right to interfere with everybody else making use of the mainland. I'm getting frustrated enough that I'm starting to have thoughts of cancelling my premium membership and writing a rl letter to Ebbe Linden over it. 

 

Edited by Female Winslet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is that Mainland is far cheaper then private land is. Otherwise I would have bought private land. I do not like visits from those I do not know. And lets face it, there are far to many out there that will wander onto your land uninvited. I wonder how many people would like someone in RL doing this to them. I have actually had issues with people coming into my actual house in SL and refusing to leave when asked politely. This is the primary reason I normally use ban lines/limited access to my land. If Private land ever becomes cheaper to purchase then Mainland I will definitely move to private land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rosekin1982 said:

Problem is that Mainland is far cheaper then private land is. Otherwise I would have bought private land. I do not like visits from those I do not know. And lets face it, there are far to many out there that will wander onto your land uninvited. I wonder how many people would like someone in RL doing this to them. I have actually had issues with people coming into my actual house in SL and refusing to leave when asked politely. This is the primary reason I normally use ban lines/limited access to my land. If Private land ever becomes cheaper to purchase then Mainland I will definitely move to private land.

If You're on your land, why not message asking them to leave, then eject and ban them individually if they don't? If you're not online, why do you care?
-A logical resident who doesn't act like SL is RL.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it is still my land. I am paying monthly for the right to call it such. Do you wander into a person's house and property in RL? (And yes I see your little signature tag there) I have as much right to expect my property in SL is respected as I do in RL. I do not set up my house and land for your use. I got no issues with people wanting to drive on the mainland roads. And honestly, if the ban lines worked how they were supposed to it would never be an issue to those using the roads. The fact that so few respect privacy and act like they have the right to wander into any parcel or home they come across is just appalling to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rosekin1982 said:

And lets face it, there are far to many out there that will wander onto your land uninvited. I wonder how many people would like someone in RL doing this to them. I have actually had issues with people coming into my actual house in SL and refusing to leave when asked politely. 

I really have to wonder about the bolded parts when people say that. Really? The entire grid is practically empty, but you have problems with people coming into your land? What's going on there that is so interesting? I track visitors on one of my land parcels and even with big displays setup for public use and contribution during the holiday season, I never got more than 20 visitors per day. Now that the holiday season is low, it's in the single digits. And that's a pretty big parcel that I want people to visit and enjoy.  

I happen to own several parcels on the grid. All of mine have ban lists that can fit 300 people on them. I'm sure yours has the same. Do you really have so many people coming and visiting you that 300 entries is not enough? Surely when someone came into your house and refused to leave, you could eject them? Why is this not sufficient?

2 hours ago, Rosekin1982 said:

Problem is that Mainland is far cheaper then private land is. Otherwise I would have bought private land. . . . If Private land ever becomes cheaper to purchase then Mainland I will definitely move to private land.

Since you were my across the street neighbor until a couple of weeks ago, I happen to know a bit about your land ownership history that makes this statement seem disingenuous, but I won't say more than that.

That's the thing about mainland. You have neighbors. You have passers by. Tons of people around. There are even automated guided tours of the mainland like the yava script pods. If you like people (like I do) then that's a big benefit. But the downside is that people can do things like build eyesores next door. It means people do go exploring and they see your place and might even get curious and look at it. In short, the mainland is NOT all about you or me or any one person. It's a shared community resource.

Private land, on the other hand, is private. You can have fewer or no neighbors. People are less likely to randomly teleport into your sim out of all the others on the grid. There are no roads that go by and lead people to visit you. There are no guided tours going by your front door. There are usually restrictions that keep people from building eyesores. In short, it's not so shared and it is much more focused on you and the small number of other people on the sim with you. These days it does indeed cost more. But it is the place to be if you want privacy. 

1 hour ago, Rosekin1982 said:

Because it is still my land. I am paying monthly for the right to call it such. Do you wander into a person's house and property in RL? (And yes I see your little signature tag there) I have as much right to expect my property in SL is respected as I do in RL. I do not set up my house and land for your use. I got no issues with people wanting to drive on the mainland roads. And honestly, if the ban lines worked how they were supposed to it would never be an issue to those using the roads. The fact that so few respect privacy and act like they have the right to wander into any parcel or home they come across is just appalling to me.

Ban lines working better would be nice. Wider roadways and canals and such would be a big help to make that happen. 

But SL is not RL. Have you read the TOS on what you actually get by "owning" land? Paragraph 3.4 of the TOS (find it here https://www.lindenlab.com/legal/second-life-terms-and-conditions) says something that sounds nice for the ban liner and security orb crowd. "You may permit or deny other users to access your Virtual Land on terms determined by you." Sounds good, right? "It's my land and I love keeping people out and don't care about how that affects everybody else" would be a perfectly fine response. Except if you keep reading.

The next paragraph says: "You agree that Linden Lab has the right to manage, regulate, control, modify and/or eliminate such Virtual Land as it sees fit and that Linden Lab shall have no liability to you based on its exercise of such right." That seems a much lesser right to have your property respected than exists in rl. So . . . what if Linden Lab exercises that right to "manage, regulate, [and/or] control" your Virtual Land right to permit or keep other users out?

As it happens, Linden Lab has done exactly that. You can find a copy of what they've done as far as bots and ban lines and such here: https://community.secondlife.com/knowledgebase/english/managing-your-parcel-r49/#Section__6_10 and the part on orbs also appears again here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Land_With_Restricted_Access#Linden_official_position

In both places, you will see this policy statement:

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

 

  • 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."

That bit about providing adequate warning and the last sentence about "us[ing] land ownership as a way to unfairly restrict another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms" are parts I wish I were clear. I've been having a lot of problem with zero warning orbs lately. It's hard to see how zero warning could possibly "[p]rovide adequate warning." And that bit about unfairly restricting another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms is not at all clear either. But, again, mainland is a shared community resource, so it's easy to see how disrupting other people's ability to use it (aviation, sailing, driving, etc) would fit within that.

 

Edited by Female Winslet
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Female Winslet said:

As it happens, Linden Lab has done exactly that. You can find a copy of what they've done as far as bots and ban lines and such here: https://community.secondlife.com/knowledgebase/english/managing-your-parcel-r49/#Section__6_10 

Ah, thank you! I didn't know where to find that, and it being part of the Knowledge Base makes it much more official than just a citation in a resident's page.

I do think a huge opportunity was missed with Mainland, back in the earliest days of private Estates. The problem was that Mainland existed first, so it would have been disruptive to simply declare it all an open showcase and encourage unfettered exploration of individually owned parcels. If a landowner wanted privacy, they could have been told to pony-up for Estate land. Mainland continents would have been a vehicular paradise and Mainland owners would know to expect exactly that, no whining and fussing about this "privacy" stuff. As we see now, there would be much demand for such open-access land -- and that demand would be much greater if that access weren't limited to isolated zones of demilitarized respite. (Note: there'd still need to be anti-griefer measures available, so some of this would still have been more policy than technical constraint; probably couldn't simply nerf llEjectFromLand() on the Governor's Estate.)

But that's all water under the bridge now. Far too many Mainland owners are really meant to be private Estate owners, but bought Mainland on the cheap (or whatever). They were encouraged to pretend their pixel property is more like their RL back porch to defend with a shotgun, banjo, and coon hound, and less like a 3D webpage. It's really too bad the demand for that restrictive Second Life weren't segregated from the incompatible demand for an openly accessible environment... but it's just never going to change now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rosekin1982 said:

Because it is still my land. I am paying monthly for the right to call it such. Do you wander into a person's house and property in RL? (And yes I see your little signature tag there) I have as much right to expect my property in SL is respected as I do in RL. I do not set up my house and land for your use. I got no issues with people wanting to drive on the mainland roads. And honestly, if the ban lines worked how they were supposed to it would never be an issue to those using the roads. The fact that so few respect privacy and act like they have the right to wander into any parcel or home they come across is just appalling to me.

I am sorry to tell you that you don't have "right" for monthly payment, but you have a function to enable exclusion access to your parcel. This function is no "right" or "wrong" moral implication.  We can use it as we wish. 

I think ban line is a problem cannot be solved. Most people come to second life enjoy the free lunch, wish can share anything, even affairs for free. They actually don't have any right, it is the system designed allowed them to do in certain way. And on the other hand, those paid member who spent money, will think that is the their property same as in real life. Both side has their own right to think the matter. But the system design is such a way, we either accept or not accept (mostly compromised to accept). otherwise you can leave second life and play other game, whatsoever.  

For people paid on the land, I personal agree that can use any function available to them.  Someone may like to share and other don't. It really do not have any connection to privacy.

For people sailing or driving or flying, rejected by ban line, I think the problem is on Linden Lab's poor decision of early selling landscape, and the poor design on the public facilities. The architect of the second life system design also contribute the problem, lag, rezzing issues, minor unstable, etc. 

For those parcel created public functionality, like a portion of a long coastal beach, the own of one portion open it or not, that is more depend on the social contract of second life. It is a matter or moral obligation on the user behind the avatar. No one has right to claim the availability of it. There is no such right of way, right of light... existing in second life. We always has alternative way to travel. Beside, right of way, right of light can only be applied to the neighbor land in interest.  

BTW, I think the privacy system still need to improve, such as "avatars on other parcels can see" other side should be single way.

IMHO. Sry for not systematically wrote. I had a headache today, must caught flu.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hunter Stern said:

On the topic of banlines. I have a great revenue idea. LL should start charging a fee for Banline usage similar to something like a utility cost and security. 👍

This would be great for the new Premium levels: A "Budget Premium membership" with lower subscription and tier fees. You'd have to keep paying the current, higher costs to be able to restrict access or disable auto-return, flying, scripts, object-entry, etc. And of course group-discounted land would be subject to the Budget limitations.

(Although I wonder if, practically, this might pose a griefer hazard. These welcoming settings are pretty safe now, most of the time, but I'm not sure how dependent that is on "herd immunity.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish people would stop quoting knowledge base articles or the second life wiki as if those are the Terms Of Service, they aren't ;)

Now, if you're going to quote them, then quote this part too: "Pushing an avatar off the property or teleporting them home is generally acceptable". The ToS, nor any other article, ever defines what a "reasonable" time is, therefore it's a bit pointless to debate it.

For what it's worth, I fly, sail, or drive all over the SL continents, I do about 50 hours or travel time per month, consistently over the past 4 years, and in all that time I've run into 0-second Orbs maybe 4 or 5 times. I honesty have no idea how so many people run into issues with them, but I am no doubt one of the few vehicle users in SL who supports the individuals rights to restrict access to their personal space.

Yes for us flyers etc it can be a pain in the butt to hit an orb, but since the continents are frankly fairly full of airports and marinas, most with rezz zones - getting back on track isn't a huge deal. The linden highways also have numerous rezz zones on them as well.

I personally think this whole issue is more about lack of education that anything else - land owners (and rental tenants) often set things up wrong, or overly restrictive, from sheer ignorance rather than any malice. Then  you get rental barons that don't allow their tenants to make time limit adjustments on orbs. Finally, vehicle users need more education too, to make sure they buy quality products that cross sims well and don't lag into ban-lines - something I see all too often. Vehicle users also need to learn how to maximise their viewer settings to provide them with a more reliable sim-crossing experience, and more information to help them determine where potential trouble spots are, either through viewer settings or with add-on HUDS.

What isn't needed is this constant elitist "what i do in SL is more important than what you do in SL" attitude, again something that I hear all too often :(

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rosekin1982 said:

Problem is that Mainland is far cheaper then private land is. Otherwise I would have bought private land. I do not like visits from those I do not know. And lets face it, there are far to many out there that will wander onto your land uninvited. I wonder how many people would like someone in RL doing this to them. I have actually had issues with people coming into my actual house in SL and refusing to leave when asked politely. This is the primary reason I normally use ban lines/limited access to my land. If Private land ever becomes cheaper to purchase then Mainland I will definitely move to private land.

There are a number of rental companies that lease parcels on private single sims and multiple sims. These really are perfect for those that wish to be left alone, and in the ones I've used, they are happy for tenants to have orbs. One even provides free orbs that can be used solely on their land.

You get 'ownership' of the parcel to be able to adjust most land settings and have to comply with a reasonable covenant in order to prevent eyesores and perhaps maintain any theme of that particular area. They really are priced well, L$0.56 - L$1.50 per prim (the higher amount usually for homestead sims where you're getting a greater area for your prims) and the only traffic you see is the occasional person looking around if one of the parcels is available for rent, but otherwise it's just your neighbouring renters who stick purely to their own parcel.

This is a good option for those that want to have flexibility in location, privacy, and you don't have to have a premium account in order to rent there.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Eowyn Southmoor said:

Now, if you're going to quote them, then quote this part too: "Pushing an avatar off the property or teleporting them home is generally acceptable". The ToS, nor any other article, ever defines what a "reasonable" time is, therefore it's a bit pointless to debate it.

In my reply to Rosekin, I quoted the provision in full, explained how it fits in with TOS (TOS gives LL the ability to establish regulations and this is one of their regulations), and pointed out that it is unclear how much warning time is adequate (although more than zero warning is obviously required). Here, I’ll quote it in full again so it is not buried in a longish post.

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.

6 hours ago, Eowyn Southmoor said:

I personally think this whole issue is more about lack of education that anything else - land owners (and rental tenants) often set things up wrong, or overly restrictive, from sheer ignorance rather than any malice. Then  you get rental barons that don't allow their tenants to make time limit adjustments on orbs.

Agree on this part. There are a lot of people out there who just don’t understand the settings on their land or their security devices. They also don’t know the LL policy. So I think it is worthwhile to let people know about it before running to file an AR. Why involve LL at all if the situation can be handled friendly?

6 hours ago, Eowyn Southmoor said:

Finally, vehicle users need more education too, to make sure they buy quality products that cross sims well and don't lag into ban-lines - something I see all too often. Vehicle users also need to learn how to maximise their viewer settings to provide them with a more reliable sim-crossing experience, and more information to help them determine where potential trouble spots are, either through viewer settings or with add-on HUDS.

I partly agree with you here. It is very worthwhile to buy optimized vehicles that handle sim crossings better and create less lag. But that is no solution to the problem. Why? Because there is no vehicle that is immune to frequent lag. Even using no vehicle at all is subject to frequent lag. It’s just a fact of SL. And it is a big part of why the people who say “just stick to the public roadways” are talking nonsensically—lag, sim crossings, etc., make it impossible to avoid bouncing into property lines just a bit and getting bounced out.

6 hours ago, Eowyn Southmoor said:

What isn't needed is this constant elitist "what i do in SL is more important than what you do in SL" attitude, again something that I hear all too often :(

Agreed. LL provides privacy management options. Use them. Even use security orbs that are setup so people can readily get out instead of ejecting with little or no warning, and people can live with it. But this attitude of “it’s my land, I get to do whatever I want, I don’t have to share, and everybody else can go to heck” is not helpful. It prevents us figuring out how to coexist together and share the mainland. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Eowyn Southmoor said:

I am no doubt one of the few vehicle users in SL who supports the individuals rights to restrict access to their personal space.

Accidentally left this out. Just wanted to point out that I’m not aware of any vehicle owner opposing the right to restrict access to their personal space. If I’ve missed something, feel free to point it out. I see a discussion happening about how to restrict access to personal space in a way that doesn’t restrict other users’ ability to make use of the mainland.

Edited by Female Winslet
Fixing typo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This morning while laying in bed trying to muster the 'want to' to get out of bed, I was thinking about this very issue. I really do wish we could find a solution that would work for everyone. So those who like to travel can do so but also those who wish to keep their space private .. really private could also do so. 

I was wondering why there can't be some kind of beacon to rez inside a parcel with an orb that would send out a signal and that the receiver could be worn by the pilots of aircraft and watercraft and only they could see the beacons. The beacon could be a red transparent enclosure of the orb protected area. I don't know how that would work. I don't know if particles would be used to indicate the boundary. But I know there are smart people out there with scripting ability. Why can't we have something like this? Wouldn't it work?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Blush Bravin said:

I was wondering why there can't be some kind of beacon to rez inside a parcel with an orb that would send out a signal and that the receiver could be worn by the pilots of aircraft and watercraft and only they could see the beacons. The beacon could be a red transparent enclosure of the orb protected area. I don't know how that would work. I don't know if particles would be used to indicate the boundary. But I know there are smart people out there with scripting ability. Why can't we have something like this? Wouldn't it work?

It sounds like something that could be a tool in the toolbox to address the issue and a step forward. You could even build the receiver into the aircraft control HUD so that pilots have to wear it. But you’d run into the same problems that affect ban lines—they don’t really in time to avoid them, lag doesn’t let you turn in time when you do see them, the sim crossing bounces you across the line.

LL has dealt with this before. It’s also been dealt with in real life before. I remember studying it in law school. Here’s something I posted explaining that in another thread:

Similar issues have been addressed in both RL and SL in the past.

In RL, the law was that property owners owned the land and everything above it. When aviation was developed, this meant that you could have a plane flying overhead and the airline could be liable for damages for trespass to every single person whose house they flew over. As you can probably imagine, that would have destroyed RL aviation industries before they got very far along at all. Can you imagine United Airlines flying around at 37,000 feet and having to pay every property owner they overfly for trespassing in the airspace above their land? That was what the law required. So Congress passed a law so that property ownership of airspace only went up so high above the ground. This allowed aviation industry to develop. 

In SL, banlines were not previously height limited. So you could fly along at 4000m altitude and suddenly hit somebody's ban line with no warning. This made aviation nearly impossible. LL addressed it by limiting the altitude of ban lines. Now, if you set them up, they don't affect anyone above roughly 200 meters altitude. And honestly, they make nifty trampolines to bounce on.

But people use security orbs now. They do not have the altitude restrictions and they frequently give little or no warning. So the same problem repeats itself that existed with ban lines before they were altitude limited. 

There are several ways that LL could address this. (1) Limit the power of security orbs to eject people to a certain altitude, most likely by limiting the ability of avatars to eject since the power of the security orb is derived from the permissions of the avatar. (2) Require all security orbs to provide a certain amount of warning. (3) Ban security orbs altogether.

I understand that option #3 is not likely to happen due to the number of people who find that one of their favorite things about property ownership is to just keep other people out because "mine mine mine mine mine so I get to keep everybody out so there!" But the first two options seem very doable and it's hard to imagine something like one of those ideas won't happen eventually.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blush Bravin said:

I was wondering why there can't be some kind of beacon to rez inside a parcel with an orb that would send out a signal and that the receiver could be worn by the pilots of aircraft and watercraft and only they could see the beacons. The beacon could be a red transparent enclosure of the orb protected area. I don't know how that would work. I don't know if particles would be used to indicate the boundary. But I know there are smart people out there with scripting ability. Why can't we have something like this? Wouldn't it work?

It's technically do-able (the particles might not work, but leaving that aside), the problem is that it's voluntary on the part of the orb owner, so although it's been suggested before, it's never gotten much traction.

On the other hand, a recent effort maps the extent of existing orbs, just based on the disruptions they cause to flight. I'd have thought this mechanical "crowdsourcing" of data wouldn't work, but I saw a live data demo at some point that looked pretty promising. (Unfortunately I don't have a link ready to hand and I haven't kept up with what further progress was made in the past few months. For that matter, it could even be mentioned in one of these several extant threads on the topic, and I'd never notice.)

2 hours ago, Blush Bravin said:

Unfortunately, any RL instances have no bearing on SL. Let's leave that to RL and just deal with the situation here in SL. 

That's kinda the whole problem. Folks on both sides take this "Land" metaphor so seriously. It's just a software program, a bunch of pixels; it's not Land, it's Land Role Play.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Rosekin1982 said:

Problem is that Mainland is far cheaper then private land is. Otherwise I would have bought private land. I do not like visits from those I do not know. And lets face it, there are far to many out there that will wander onto your land uninvited. I wonder how many people would like someone in RL doing this to them. I have actually had issues with people coming into my actual house in SL and refusing to leave when asked politely. This is the primary reason I normally use ban lines/limited access to my land. If Private land ever becomes cheaper to purchase then Mainland I will definitely move to private land.

Why would you ask politely? Either you want them there or you don't. If you don't you simply eject them. If they fuss at you over it, ban them permanently and mute them.

Oh, and turn off object entry so they can't rezz a griefer item and edit it onto your property.

Some people on voice that I banned were actually discussing where the nearest rezz zone was so that they could do just that.

Silly kids... you can't beat the landowner.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1755 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...