Lower banline height on mainland?

[iamyourneighbour]

Hi, with the banlines on mainland, currently if a parcel has whitelist or group whitelist it has a banline of up to 50m. Can we actually reduce that to just 20m?

With skyboxes they are rarely sitting at 50m (since that would defeat the point of having one because the main reasons for skyboxes are privacy and reduced rendering) and a lot of the whitelist is done with no knowledge of how the system actually works and the land owner becomes surprised at people being able to enter their skybox and further compounded by the ample 512 sqm land that has not seen its owner step on it until their credit card expire three years later, lowering the whitelist banlines to 20m will allow more freedom of movement especially for aircrafts and hovercrafts. 

The whitelist banlines have their places, quite a few of my tenants use it, but none of them ever had to go beyond the 20m mark in a single dwelling parcel.

Edited June 8, 2019 by iamyourneighbour

[Aethelwine]

20m or 50m it makes not much difference, better to just get rid of them, they don't do anything that orbs don't do better. Their only useful function is to serve as a trampoline for bouncing on and that wears thin pretty quickly.

[Heathernorton]

Id rather hit a ban line than a security orb with zero warning and be sent back home.

I don't like them, but its part of mainland 

[Kyrah Abattoir]

On 6/9/2019 at 4:07 AM, Aethelwine said:

20m or 50m it makes not much difference, better to just get rid of them, they don't do anything that orbs don't do better. Their only useful function is to serve as a trampoline for bouncing on and that wears thin pretty quickly.

Orbs aren't visible...

[Osa Engawa]

How about no ban lines or <30 second orbs on parcels adjacent to protected land (especially roads and waterways)? If you want to lock out the public, get off the public infrastructure.

[Qie Niangao]

On 6/28/2019 at 3:37 PM, Osa Engawa said:

How about no ban lines or <30 second orbs on parcels adjacent to protected land (especially roads and waterways)? If you want to lock out the public, get off the public infrastructure.

Interesting. Bellisseria scored a clear win for more tolerant access.

It's a different problem with landowners who've held their roadside parcels for years, though. Not sure it would be fair to them. Otherwise could be a big improvement. But:

• Would it make the new Linden Homes less special compared to Mainland? (would that be good or bad?)
• Would landowners recover strict access control on most of their land by splitting off little strip parcels along the protected lands? Maybe not. (But potential nightmare: they split AND AUCTION OFF those little strips, and billboards line the routes again.)

[Fionalein]

What about the folks who like their banlines? And who even pays that tier? The person with the banline or the passing traveller?

[Qie Niangao]

Yeah, if one really wanted this to happen, the easiest way would be to engineer a bug that silently stopped all whitelist access control from doing anything on Protected-adjacent parcels. Only a handful of people would ever notice, point them to a jira that's acknowledged but unworked, and call it a day.

[Osa Engawa]

10 hours ago, Fionalein said:

What about the folks who like their banlines? And who even pays that tier? The person with the banline or the passing traveller?

Why live on the mainland if you’re just going to live in an isolated fort? I’m not saying you’re wrong, I just don’t understand the kind of individualism that drives a lot of SL landowners. One of the main things keeping me from buying land is the odds I’d have a neighbor like this.

[Fox Wijaya]

58 minutes ago, Osa Engawa said:

 One of the main things keeping me from buying land is the odds I’d have a neighbor like this.

keep doing that.. i would hate it to get a neighbour that's nosy interested in my quiet chosen time i spend at my home.

[Blush Bravin]

1 hour ago, Osa Engawa said:

Why live on the mainland if you’re just going to live in an isolated fort?

Because someone wants to use the sqm that comes with their premium account. Premium account holders come in all kinds of shapes and sizes. We don't all have the same needs but we do all have sqm that can only be used on mainland or in a Linden Home.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Blush Bravin

[Raevyn Addams]

2 hours ago, Osa Engawa said:

Why live on the mainland if you’re just going to live in an isolated fort? I’m not saying you’re wrong, I just don’t understand the kind of individualism that drives a lot of SL landowners. One of the main things keeping me from buying land is the odds I’d have a neighbor like this.

Individualism is one thing. But spending my tier to look at the sex dungeon surrounded by the 60 sqm full bright walls, with 50 breedable cats crowding the yard, and the same YouTube streaming channel playing on a 30 sqm TV, while fifteen fountains and bathtubs all play the same running water sound day in and day out is NOT my idea of fun. Spend a few years renting on mainland and watch your tolerance for neighbourly conduct quickly evaporate. 

Same goes for those who would venture into others' land just because they can. I wouldn't walk into a strangers house uninvited in real life, I won't do it in Second Life. But some people don't have the same respect for boundaries. If it's an accident that's a different story. That's okay. Accidents happen. If you live close to a public road then accidents are bound to happen given lag or at least vehicle handling (or user error, speaking from experience). I don't generally use ban lines but sometimes they seem to be as disruptive as those who freely invade people's houses. Sadly we don't live in a society where commonsense is common, so standards won't change because we expect or want them to.

I think if you live on mainland as a land owner you have the right to choose how you want to "protect" it. But the onus of responsibility is also on you (if you pick land close to a public place like Linden roads) to not obstruct or impede the route for others. Try a little common courtesy; it might catch on.

Personally I don't see the difference regardless what height you set it at. If I had to pick a side I would say ideally no ban lines, but set an orb with a reasonable time for someone to get out would probably be the best overall solution. 

P.S. Went off on a tangent and answered as a whole, as opposed to answering the OP; have no idea about that ability or even if the suggestion would make much difference. 

*shrugs* 

[Clara Hollyberry]

In my experience, the only people who want to erode the boundaries of others are people who want to erode the boundaries of others.  

Ban lines are ban lines, and there they are, and I for one support their use at their current height, on land whose covenant does not restrict them or forbid them.  There are areas for those who hate ban lines and areas for those who use them; why on earth force one to become the other or begin the process of erosion by talking of heights?

If you pay for that land, you get to protect that land from drive-by fly-by speedboat-by whoevers that ruin the tranquility we work hard to create.  Yes, some people like to escape to a place where there are no other people.  (De-rendering works, my plot is a beautiful island oasis with nothing around it, and it feels peaceful and quiet, regardless of the chaos that is otherwise rendered around it.)  In real life and in Second Life, airspace comes with land we pay for; and right now the height is just fine for me and my mainland neighbours, thanks, no need to change it.  If you are going to fly over land I paid for, go up up up to do so, as is your ability and freedom.

[Raspberry Crystal]

3 hours ago, Osa Engawa said:

Why live on the mainland if you’re just going to live in an isolated fort?

I get the economics, but it feels very inefficient to have such varying needs being at odds with each other.

7 minutes ago, Clarrellae said:

the only people who want to erode the boundaries of others are people who want to erode the boundaries of others.

It would be good to have more of a choice. Mainland with and without fortress abilities! I feel like it erodes my boundaries to have to either look at walls, or derender second life to the point of extinction.

14 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

Bellisseria scored a clear win for more tolerant access.

Bellisseria is a lovely place, but not so good if you want your own style of house, or just a garden or some such thing.

[Qie Niangao]

1 hour ago, Raspberry Crystal said:

Bellisseria is a lovely place, but not so good if you want your own style of house, or just a garden or some such thing.

Yep, and I wouldn't keep my Bellisseria houseboat if it forced me to give up all my Mainland holdings. And yet, I think we learned from the success of Bellisseria's access control regime that the Mainland would have been better off with similar rules -- especially along shared infrastructure which is everywhere on Bellisseria -- if it had started out that way. It's a little hard to change it now. I mean, they changed the rules on Bellisseria, what? just a few days after it opened. So nobody really had grounds to complain. But there'd be some epic bitching and moaning if they officially changed even part of one Mainland continent now. I'm pretty confident that the vast majority of those hypothetical complainers would never notice if their group-only access controls suddenly became no-op placebos. If the controls were visibly deactivated, though, there'd be no end to the aggrieved entitlement of us old timey landowners.

[Clara Hollyberry]

3 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

I mean, they changed the rules on Bellisseria, what? just a few days after it opened. So nobody really had grounds to complain. But there'd be some epic bitching and moaning if they officially changed even part of one Mainland continent now. 

Out of curiosity (I am not in Bellisseria but I am still curious what you're referring to) what rules were changed a few days after opening? 

[Qie Niangao]

So at first the rules were the same as Mainland, but very soon thereafter they responded to a lot of feedback about how difficult it was to navigate (both on land and in the narrow waters around the houseboats) without bumping into private parcels with banlines and hair-trigger security orbs. So first they made whitelist banlines impossible -- they just can't be created -- and announced that security orbs would be disallowed except for a specific script to be supplied by the Moles, with a minimum parcel escape time and other features to minimize the disruptions caused by poorly configured security scripts. As far as I know, they haven't enforced the ban on all other security orbs as long as they comply with the restrictions.

I'm sure there are handy blog posts and stuff about this somewhere, if I bestir myself to dredge them up and edit them in here.

ETA:

• Here's where Constantine announces the changed security / privacy rules.
• Here's where Patch announces availability of the official security scripts.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Qie Niangao

[ArgontheDevil Ormega]

"So at first the rules were the same as Mainland, but very soon thereafter they responded to a lot of feedback about how difficult it was to navigate (both on land and in the narrow waters around the houseboats) without bumping into private parcels with banlines and hair-trigger security orbs. So first they made whitelist banlines impossible -- they just can't be created -- and announced that security orbs would be disallowed except for a specific script to be supplied by the Moles, with a minimum parcel escape time and other features to minimize the disruptions caused by poorly configured security scripts. As far as I know, they haven't enforced the ban on all other security orbs as long as they comply with the restrictions. "

Which is why I have zero interest in Bellisaria.  I pay good tier for my land and I don't pay it for the convenience of the odd passerby.

[Fionalein]

7 minutes ago, ArgontheDevil Ormega said:

As far as I know, they haven't enforced the ban on all other security orbs as long as they comply with the restrictions.

It is confusing ... inworld covenant says it must be similar or less restrictive than the LDPW one, while Forum entry states it must be the LDPW supplied one - quite a bunch of folks might have been ARed on basis of the Forums information...

Edited July 25, 2019 by Fionalein

[Female Winslet]

Subsequent forum posts have said that non-LL orbs are allowed as long as they comply with the LL restrictions. Not confusing at all, really. You just have to keep up with what’s going on. 🙂

[Ingrid Ingersoll]

On 7/1/2019 at 10:55 AM, RaeLeeH said:

But spending my tier to look at the sex dungeon surrounded by the 60 sqm full bright walls, with 50 breedable cats crowding the yard, and the same YouTube streaming channel playing on a 30 sqm TV, while fifteen fountains and bathtubs all play the same running water sound day in and day out is NOT my idea of fun.

Oh LOL. Truths.

[Ingrid Ingersoll]

I don't care for ban lines, they impinge of my freedom to fly and they're useless.  People can cam in to see anything they want. Just hide your sex dungeon in the air where no one will see it. I like having people wander around my "home" when I'm not there. I want them to. I'm sans ban lines.

[animats]

I'd like to see the Bellesaria ban line, security orb, and skybox policy on parts of mainland.

[Aethelwine]

On 7/1/2019 at 2:24 AM, Fionalein said:

What about the folks who like their banlines? And who even pays that tier? The person with the banline or the passing traveller?

Obviously the owner, but if they didn't in the case of roadside parcels or waterways the land wouldn't stay vacant long if we'll connected for travelling. 

It is more useful to consider a situation along a river system or road, much of the land will attract premium prices 30,000 to 200,000 not uncommon. All along the waterways owners prepared to pay those prices for the travelling access they provide. Now consider the rights of the one landowner on a corner parcel, or land they dug out that now covers half the waterway that puts up an aggressive orb, a banline. They have the ability to do that, but in doing so they affect the value of the land of everyone upstream obstructing access for multiple landowners and travellers alike. In this situation in a very real sense the people losing money invested and paying for the restrictions isn't the landowner with the restrictions but all those around them.

When claiming a right impacts negatively on far more people than any benefit gained it should be reviewed The way the system presently works provides a disincentive to owning land that negatively affects the whole community. 

[Raspberry Crystal]

1 hour ago, Aethelwine said:

much of the land will attract premium prices 30,000 to 200,000 not uncommon

Those might be the advertised prices, but apart from unusual situations I'm not sure those values would be realised.

I totally agree with your point that aggressive orb usage is a disadvantage for the whole community.