Jump to content
iamyourneighbour

Lower banline height on mainland?

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Raspberry Crystal said:

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.

Those prices are realised, when the neighbours haven't got aggressive security. I shop around and have fairly modest requirements but have spent 50,000 on parcels before now. The higher end of my range is fairly modest compared with some you see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Raspberry Crystal said:

aggressive orb usage is a disadvantage for the whole community.

does that community pay my tier and purchase price?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

does that community pay my tier and purchase price?

Given that what you pay isn't sufficient to completely fund all all the services that are available to you, yes they do.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between how things might have been better had the rules been different when a continent was new, and how things could plausibly change now without causing too much disruption. I don't know of any ways things could change now on long established continents without lots of folks feeling like they've had something taken from them that they paid for.

I've mentioned before that I think the Mainland would have been a more successful project (and made Estates more successful, too) if it had whitelist banlines disabled everywhere and some strict limits on how scripted security could work -- but only if it had been set up that way more or less from the start, as in Bellisseria (with only a brief initial interval before the new rules were set).

But now I wonder... what if all Mainland bought starting, say, October 1st, were subject to a new set of rules? Given where we are at this point, here's what I'd propose: Any newly acquired land (acquired by any means, even merely deeding or buying back group-owned land) would become subject to the "Bellisseria rules" if that land had any point of adjacency to Linden Protected Land. So all waterfront, road and rail frontage, etc., would become "explorer tolerant" the next time it changed ownership.

One advantage is that this would offer an incentive for some privacy-seeking folks to fill the more sparsely developed parts of continents that don't front on Linden infrastructure. It might thus (slightly) reduce demand for that protected frontage, maybe (slightly) equalizing prices -- although I wouldn't rule out the possibility that demand for protected frontage might increase with the knowledge that some neighbors could never erect banlines.

This of course wouldn't be perfect for the traveller. There will always remain some land held since before The Flood, banlined until pried from its owner's cold dead hands, so the traveller will still need to keep parcel borders showing in their viewer or adopt some other warning method to avoid the remaining traps. Those attempting cross-country flight would still need to stay well aloft and still beware the hair-triggered orbs at cruising altitude.

There would be a significant technical challenge to making this real: Right now, it's a region-level setting to turn off whitelist banlines. There'd be some development needed to push that down to the parcel level and somehow automate its enforcement contingent on adjacency to protected land, triggered by change of ownership.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or... how about all parcels near water or roads (if those are what you're concerned about)  become bounded by protected water and curbs-allowance so that parcel owners can use whatever privacy they want while not obstructing traffic, per se.  Or maybe nothing really needs to change on the glorious mainland, seeing as other communities are being established for different tastes and ideas of community.   The people who love the mainland really love the mainland ❤️  It's just fine how it is, really, always changing and staying the same in the important ways.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I get plenty of room to travel on Bellisseria myself. I'm just a bit worried that the "real" Mainland may empty out even more than it is already because it can't compete with the ease of getting around Bellisseria without getting trapped or TP'd home, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

Any newly acquired land (acquired by any means, even merely deeding or buying back group-owned land) would become subject to the "Bellisseria rules" if that land had any point of adjacency to Linden Protected Land. So all waterfront, road and rail frontage, etc., would become "explorer tolerant" the next time it changed ownership.

Now that's a really good idea. That would start to fix the most annoying ban line situations. The waterways from hell, with invisible ban lines on open water. Ban lines next to roads, or in a few places, due to road edge problems, onto the road itself. Perhaps add that parcels adjacent to Linden Protected Land that do not already have a ban line cannot raise one in future.

Users would probably map all ban lines adjacent to Linden Protected Land. Drivers of SL does that now. The rallies guided by their HUDs warn you of ban lines ahead on your left and right. Once we knew that new ban lines along roads would not appear, it would be worth filling out the obstacle map.

(There are a few parcels in SL whose coastal ban lines block off water access to large areas. Take a boat from Bellesaria to Sansara and head either east or west as far as you can. You won't get very far. I'm plugging for a Bellesaria expansion to the northwest to clean up that mess.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 6/28/2019 at 12:37 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.

Nice idea. 

On 7/1/2019 at 4:24 AM, Qie Niangao said:

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.

SO completely true.  And a real indicator that you've either been in SL way too long, and/or you should be hired by LL immediately.  Job: "enhancement strategist"

On 6/30/2019 at 6:06 PM, Qie Niangao said:

Would it make the new Linden Homes less special compared to Mainland? (would that be good or bad?)

Dubious.  The appeal of Belli has many facets,  but it is a LH continent.  I think a lot of mainlanders highly value the freedom mainland confers, some revel in the chaos of it all I'm sure.  Belli is even more constrained than most themed private island estates.

But I think that mainlanders and estate-dwellers who love where they currently dwell will be visiting Belli to sail and wander,.  Lots of rez zones, long unhampered waterways, and extensive paths through pretty neighborhoods make it an ideal tourist destination.  It MAY even get its own rail network.

And thank the powers that be, no commerce at all.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2019 at 10:07 PM, 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.

Amen.

Banlines are nothing but eye sores. Not like a person cant fly 50m up and over on to your land anyways. They are usless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it should be raised up to the full 4096 meters, standard enabled, teleporting intuding people to those horrible safehubs ( where you normally end when logging in during rolling restarts) ánd taken the ability to tp and fly for 30 minutes.:SwingingFriends:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

it should be raised up to the full 4096 meters, standard enabled, teleporting intuding people to those horrible safehubs ( where you normally end when logging in during rolling restarts) ánd taken the ability to tp and fly for 30 minutes.:SwingingFriends:

You can do that right now, and more.

If you own your own private region...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

many people forget you néed your resticted access at mainland or will be at risk to be reported for adult activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

many people forget you néed your resticted access at mainland or will be at risk to be reported for adult activities.

Unless you are aware of any action being taken on those reports, your concerns are misplaced.

It is very common to see rental covenants on mainland that both forbid ban lines and allow for adult activities in private. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2019 at 11:04 PM, Qie Niangao said:

But now I wonder... what if all Mainland bought starting, say, October 1st, were subject to a new set of rules? Given where we are at this point, here's what I'd propose: Any newly acquired land (acquired by any means, even merely deeding or buying back group-owned land) would become subject to the "Bellisseria rules" if that land had any point of adjacency to Linden Protected Land. So all waterfront, road and rail frontage, etc., would become "explorer tolerant" the next time it changed ownership

as you go on to say there would be an issue with long-time held parcels. Another one is that parcels next to right-of-ways are lots of different shapes. From 16m's to whole regions

what I think could be done (and has been done with a lot of the old 16 and 32 ad parcels) is when a parcel next to a right-of-way is abandoned then chop a strip off and join it to the right-of-way parcel.  A LDPW road-widening program done progressively over the long time - as is what happened to most of the abandoned 16/32 ad parcels.

another 8 meters or so width, can make quite a lot of difference to vehicle travel as usually the main cause of vehicles hitting banlines is trying to keep the vehicle on the right-of-way 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

Unless you are aware of any action being taken on those reports, your concerns are misplaced.

if action is taken or not, is totally irrelevant, the policies tell clearly what you have to do in case you have adult content at moderate regions.
It's no concern, but following the policies.
 

 

14 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

It is very common to see rental covenants on mainland that both forbid ban lines and allow for adult activities in private.

What others do is not my responsibility.
A owner has to do all possible to prevent others to get confronted with adult activities, the most easy and fast setting is to limit access to group only and turn off visibility.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

if action is taken or not, is totally irrelevant, the policies tell clearly what you have to do in case you have adult content at moderate regions.
It's no concern, but following the policies.

What others do is not my responsibility.
A owner has to do all possible to prevent others to get confronted with adult activities, the most easy and fast setting is to limit access to group only and turn off visibility.

Simply stating that the policies are clear is hardly helpful when there are two different interpretations.

The two easy ways you suggest, group only (ban lines) and parcel visibility, do nothing to stop anyone from using adult furniture above the banlines, in skyboxes where most people put them. The Behind Closed doors policy specifies a requirement for "reasonable effort", by no definition can fruitless and pointless actions be considered reasonable. In the very limited circumstance of sex furniture at ground level, then yes, banlines can be considered reasonable, but not for furniture up in the sky.

Your restrictive interpretation is ignored across mainland, because it is false. If it was enforced as you describe it would be a detrimental change for landowners and travellers.

Edited by Aethelwine
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any changes to ban lines for the majority of mainland is going to help anyone.  Lowering the height makes little difference and removing them altogether apart from upsetting people who pay LL money will only push those who are upset to use aggressive security systems.  LL may be willing to police Bellisseria actively for now but they won't have the resources to police the rest of mainland to make sure that people are using the correctly sanctioned LL orb which in turn would need the same rules for heights of skyboxes, flight zone, etc.  Bellisseria is a managed community project, the rest of mainland cannot be treated in the same way effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

Your restrictive interpretation

isn't more or less worth than yours
 

26 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

If it was enforced as you describe it would be a detrimental change for landowners and travellers.

i cant really care about what you think about enforcing the rules,for me those are clear and i use them.
And i don't have to adjust my interpretation for other landowners and even less for travelers, i'm not a Bellisserian.
If people don't want to see banlines; simply disable those in the viewer.

I don't live in the sky, so my resticted acces is totally in line with the reccommendations by LL.
The only place where i have seen slightly different rules, explained by Patch Linden,  are on the Belliseria regions, where it's impossible to use access restrictions.

Edited by Alwin Alcott
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

i cant really care about what you think about enforcing the rules,for me those are clear and i use them.
And i don't have to adjust my interpretation for other landowners and even less for travelers, i'm not a Bellisserian.
If people don't want to see banlines; simply disable those in the viewer.

I don't live in the sky, so my resticted acces is totally in line with the reccommendations by LL.
The only place where i have seen slightly different rules, explained by Patch Linden,  are on the Belliseria regions, where it's impossible to use access restrictions.

No one has said you have to get rid of your banlines, least of all me.

Not just Bellisseria, the same applies for the big rental companies dealing in mainland water ways and with the private estates attached to mainland.

Having banlines up next door to me does irritate me, I know I can hide them, i know I can look up the different viewer settings for guests to obscure them too, it takes time, to do but possible. It is far easier to just put a great big wall to block them out and more attractive, something I am just as entitled to do as you are to put your banlines up. But really despite them creating escalating tensions between neighbours, that is not so much the issue as those that interfere with Linden routeways, the banlines on sim corners, and worse still the dug out parcels next to rivers that look like public waterway until it is too late and your boat is embedded in them. All kind of interesting discussion, but a distraction since none of that is our disagreement.

The issue I have is when you say...

7 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

many people forget you néed your resticted access at mainland or will be at risk to be reported for adult activities.

that is simply not true. It is true only for adult furniture at ground level.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This extreme dislike of ban lines & "aggressive" security orbs has a bit of a socialist flavor to it, IMHO. Who are these people that are flying all over the place instead of just directly TPing to a particular destination? Oh wait, I believe I had a rather unpleasant interaction with one of those individuals, a couple of years ago. A random "traveler" told me I should turn off my security orb because it had "interrupted" his flight. He then went on to elaborate on why EVERYONE should have public access to the piece of land that I paid for. I think he even went so far as to suggest that, if I didn't care for intruders, I should just GTFO of SL. This particular piece of mainland was out in the middle of nowhere, with large chunks of abandoned land surrounding it, mind you. So, after he finished his little anti-private property speech, I told him to kiss the inside of my #@%hole, and sent him home with a swift click. Most satisfying.

My home is your home? Nah.

'Tis a shame I can't use stricter settings on my orb in Bellisseria. That's the one thing I don't like.

Edited by Cherry75
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thinks a LOT of drama could be solved by flipping banlines to work within 40m of 4096m up instead of 40m from ground.

Likewise securitymorbs could be fixed by 1 of a couple methods:

1. Scripted avatar removal only working above 2000m

2. And/or scripted avatar removal only working if no 'line' can be drawn between the orb edges and the parcel edge.

The second solution is really tricky for SL if my understanding is right because SL lacks the common navmesh map trick to make NPCs move as it generally lacks NPCs... as in, unlike a typical MMO or video game SL has no pathing knowledge. But a very basic test could  be done: on creating any scripted avatar removal system explode something out from it and if there is any failure to collide before hitting a parcel edge, the script de-activates.

- reasoning: orbs should never toss someone just walking by. They should only get people who first purposefully cross some barrier.

But making them work this way in SL is probably too difficult...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never argue for removing banlines, I argue for a new continent without banlines. Let those who must have them, in peace. In time we shall see what continent who has the most unwanted parcels and who drop in price.

So you who need banlines might find yourself having plenty of parcels for a cheap price. And isn't that good? Fewer pesky others around too.

Because I have no doubt that a new mainland continent with rules will sell well. If LL makes one.

Old Mainland isn't what everybody wants, and not everybody will rent from a private estate.

On 9/13/2019 at 12:58 PM, Alwin Alcott said:

many people forget you néed your resticted access at mainland or will be at risk to be reported for adult activities.

I would like to see the Tos that say an orb can't do the job. You are always polarizing threads, it is making you happy?

Edited by Marianne Little

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marianne Little said:

I would like to see the Tos that say an orb can't do the job. You are always polarizing threads, it is making you happy?

nowhere i claim a orb won't do the job, but you can get reported if you use the covenant settings from belliseria  before ejecting, a limit of at least ten seconds is enough to hop on adult furniture, or be confronted with it. As i said, my home isn't in a skybox, at groundlevel it's simply most safe to use all the tools that are provided to keep access limited.

Isn't putting things sharp just a point in a discussion? , if it is polarizing, it's how you read it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...