Land Owner Forced Teleport Home

[Lindal Kidd]

1 hour ago, Rabid Cheetah said:

So you're saying parcel owners have the right to kill people if they dare stray onto their parcels by even a pixel for a fraction of a nanosecond.

Why yes...yes I am.

[Ardy Lay]

Too bad the road and waterway rights-of-way are narrow-mindedly narrow and inconsolably jagged in so many places.  I was walking around looking at this recently, wondering what all the fuss in for forums is about.  In a lot of places the right-of-way is narrow and jagged and the road laid upon it is encroaching on BOTH sides leaving the only apparent safe passage right down centerline.  I saw two places where that wasn't even safe as the right-of-way zigged abruptly and the road had a reasonable curve to it.

If I had to fix this, I feel my only recourse would be to literally re-course the roadways and waterways by taking land from the adjacent parcels and joining it to the rights-of-way.  This would return the freedom to travel AND the freedom to ban-to-your-gizzard's content.

[Gabriele Graves]

5 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

I agree that teleporting a trespasser home is often overkill.  But sometimes it's not, so the option should be there.  One way to look at it is to compare it to what happens on a damage-enabled region.  If you're killed, you get teleported home.  Since landowners have the right to turn on damage for their land, surely they have the right to teleport you home via an orb.

This is an interesting one.  This itself has been the cause of much consternation of new people who don't understand or know that it has been enabled or what it means.

I think the main reason that it teleports you home is so that there is a very visible impact to "dying".  Obviously the software has a limited range of things it can use to achieve that. 

However, I do wonder if a similar level of impact could be achieved by using a less intrusive method to remove you from the land, shaking the screen and using a region restart type dialog to tell you that you have "died" and been moved.

ADDED:  So again, the land owner's ability to "kill" someone on their land and have them removed isn't the question.  The questions are what should happen to that person afterwards and does it have to go as far as sending them home?

Edited September 23, 2020 by Gabriele Graves
added more stuff

[Gabriele Graves]

4 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I wonder if it might not be feasible, technically, to send someone directly to the nearest rez zone?

This isn't a bad alternative.  The only downside I can see are that there may not be a rez zone on the region and in that case it would involve tp'ing someone again.  For those who dislike being force teleported anywhere, this would still be an issue.

[Gabriele Graves]

3 hours ago, Solar Legion said:

As for a Parcel Wide "orb" system being set to Teleport Home over a simple ejection? The only answer that matters is as follows: Personal choice.

Thank you for your honesty and not trying to dress up personal choice as anything else.

I did expect someone to come along, beat their chest and loudly exclaim that these tools are their god given right to use and they will damn well use them.
You aren't wrong either.  You certainly can use these tools as you see fit regardless of how others feel about it.

However, should LL decide to change that ability then what was once thought of as a right, becomes very apparently a granted ability only.

The impact to you presumably would be, that you then choose the next most suitable tools to protect your parcel(s) and life would go on.

[Gabriele Graves]

2 hours ago, Blush Diavolo said:

A friend of a friend fell asleep and left her avatar online on my sim the other night, they asked if I could eject her so people wouldn't think she was stood ignoring people etc, instead I used the teleport home feature as then she wouldn't be sat on parcel lines for multiple hours and instead be in her home location.

 

edit: typos

This is a lovely compassionate take on using the feature to try to benefit someone.  I do think though that if I were prone to being in this situation and cared about it, I would probably eventually turn on the idle time logout feature rather than rely on others to send me home.

[Lindal Kidd]

1 hour ago, Gabriele Graves said:

The questions are what should happen to that person afterwards and does it have to go as far as sending them home?

Kill them all...the Devil will know his own!

[Marianne Little]

I remember @Pussycat Catnaphad a long and very good post about 0 second, teleport home orbs. But she is using them in a very specific way.

I am sure she will clear up, if I post wrong about what I remember.

She has a skybox for private activity. She put this skybox inside another, much larger box and has 0 second, teleport home as soon as avatars enter the outside box. Because they have to do it on purpose, aviators that innocently fly and explore will see the huge box from a distance. So they go inside because they want to see what 2 green dots do there.

Pushing them out would mean that they hoover outside and zoom in. She will not have them hanging around. It is that "Set avatars inside this parcel invisible" but maybe people want to be social and interact with others on the ground. Plus that avatars who really want to snope, is it no reason to let them hang around on her own, private land and satisfy their curiosity.

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Marianne Little

[Rabid Cheetah]

2 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Why yes...yes I am.

Doesn't surprise me.  SO glad I'm not your neighbor, especially if it were to be in RL.  Do you sit on the porch with a sawed-off shotgun?

[Alwin Alcott]

8 hours ago, animats said:

 Some orbs are bluffing, sending those messages to boats outside of their parcel. (That's a TOS violation.)

 

i wonder if it's really against TOS to send those messages.. if it's just that.
Mostly who only send messages are wrong configurations, often non deeded orbs on group land.

[Gabriele Graves]

12 minutes ago, Marianne Little said:

Pushing them out would mean that they hoover outside and zoom in. She will not have them hanging around.

I can certainly understand this sentiment and I have definitely been there.  However, looking at it objectively, there is nothing stopping a person deliberately hovering outside her skybox but not on her land.  There would be nothing she could do about that.  It isn't any different from the avatar ending up there by being banned/ejected instead of being tp'd home.  As much as I sympathise with the desire to have them gone, I am not sure this in itself is a reason to justify tp'ing someone home.  Even with tp'ing home, they could just come back and hover just outside her parcel.  I have had people do this exact thing as well.  Even if they cannot see anything inside the parcel, their presence can make us feel uncomfortable and intimidated.

So no doubt, it can be horrible when it happens but it raises the question, how far should we be able to go to make sure undesirable people cannot be near us?  If a person desires that level of privacy it can be had but it currently comes at the cost of purchasing/renting a private island.

[Anna Nova]

7 hours ago, Kimmi Zehetbauer said:

Didn't they have orbs that logged you out.  I remember that from back in 1952.....

 

You don't need orbs to log you out, until recently any sim crossing did it.  The new code is much better, and you have to drive over a corner to get logged out now.

[AlettaMondragon]

8 hours ago, animats said:

Actually, all hitting a ban line does is turn off physics. A script can back the vehicle out and turn physics back on. My bikes and a boat do that. Bumping into a ban line with a ground or water vehicle equipped this way is not a big issue.

This is true, I was talking about the situation where an orb ejects you from the parcel. In that case, it's not granted that your vehicle will even stop.

[Kyrah Abattoir]

15 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

I agree that teleporting a trespasser home is often overkill.  But sometimes it's not, so the option should be there.

The problem is that eject/tphome/ban are the only options we have, after 16 years, and all of them are basically "nuclear".

 

I keep being told that milder options would be "abusive".

  

7 hours ago, Marianne Little said:

Pushing them out would mean that they hoover outside and zoom in.

Which is perfectly within their rights, you have no right on land bordering yours.

  

7 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Even if they cannot see anything inside the parcel, their presence can make us feel uncomfortable and intimidated.

If they cannot see you, you also cannot see them.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Kyrah Abattoir

[Gabriele Graves]

16 minutes ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

If they cannot see you, you also cannot see them.

You are definitely aware of their presence though via the mini map and the radar.

[Kyrah Abattoir]

1 hour ago, Gabriele Graves said:

You are definitely aware of their presence though via the mini map and the radar.

Yeah but that's fine.

There is a point where you have to accept this is enough, when it starts to negatively impact the many for the sake of the few.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

9 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I can certainly understand this sentiment and I have definitely been there.  However, looking at it objectively, there is nothing stopping a person deliberately hovering outside her skybox but not on her land.  There would be nothing she could do about that.  It isn't any different from the avatar ending up there by being banned/ejected instead of being tp'd home.  As much as I sympathise with the desire to have them gone, I am not sure this in itself is a reason to justify tp'ing someone home.  Even with tp'ing home, they could just come back and hover just outside her parcel.  I have had people do this exact thing as well.  Even if they cannot see anything inside the parcel, their presence can make us feel uncomfortable and intimidated.

So no doubt, it can be horrible when it happens but it raises the question, how far should we be able to go to make sure undesirable people cannot be near us?  If a person desires that level of privacy it can be had but it currently comes at the cost of purchasing/renting a private island.

I very genuinely admire your responses and thoughts on all of this, Gabriele. They are measured, thoughtful, and seek to reconcile the very real needs both of those who want or require privacy (as who does not?), and those who feel that the tools available for this, or at least the way in which some people wield them, represent an infringement upon the rights of others. We'll never find a perfect balance for these two -- we've been struggling to do so in RL for centuries, after all -- and there are the additional limitations of what is really feasible in terms of coding and affordance, but it would be nice to think that we can find a better way of managing this.

SL was founded upon essentially libertarian principles, and the focus has always been, I think rightly, upon individual freedoms. The platform has been designed in such a way as to provide each of us with the most powerful tools possible to express that freedom, creatively, politically, sexually, and personally.

Somehow, however, we've shifted from the notion of "freedom" to that of "rights." (This latter idea is, as someone above noted, a bit of a red herring: we have no "rights" here, but merely the ability to do certain things, as provided by LL.) A more important observation on the "language" of "rights" that we see employed here is this:

When the concept of "rights" is used, it is too often evoked without an acknowledgment of the complementary principle, which is responsibility.

Most importantly, by that, I mean social responsibility: the acknowledgment that living with other people in a community or society is not merely about jealousy guarding and wantonly exercising all of our "rights," but also about working with others to produce a just and (relatively) harmonious civil society which not merely safeguards the rights we claim for ourselves, but also values and protects those of others. "Your rights" are meaningless in a culture which does not value the concept of "rights" for all.

Without this notion of civic responsibility -- our understanding that our own rights are best preserved by protecting those of others too -- we are no longer talking about "freedom" in a real sense, but rather about a sort of Hobbist contest of strength, in which "rights" are enforced, often arbitrarily, without any consideration of their impact upon others, and the damage they may be doing to our civil society as a whole.

It seems to me that this problem is at the root of the view we hear expressed here very often: "It's my 'right' to do whatever I want on 'my land,' and I therefore can't be held accountable for the fact that I've chosen to exercise them in a way that demonstrates that I'm an uncaring, inconsiderate jerk."

We can view "freedom" as an opportunity to work together for a balance that ensures that both individual and collective prosper together and in a complementary fashion. Or we can treat it as an invitation for a narrow individualistic understanding that equates "rights" merely with "power," and in which our interactions with others are ultimately nothing more than a struggle to determine who is strongest and most capable of projecting their will upon others.

I know which kind of culture I'd prefer to live in.

[Qie Niangao]

Personally, I think Mainland should have granted landowners only very circumscribed powers over visitors, and that the Belli security protocol would have been better. Estates on the other hand could grant region or parcel owners whatever powers they want; nobody explores an Estate anyway, with very few exceptions.

Too late to make any changes now, I guess. Or maybe not. The rationale for giving such overwhelming powers to landowners (including Mainland) probably included the fact that they paid the bills. Literally, all the bills, for a long time, with Marketplace and LindeX barely covering operating expenses. Now they've gradually increased the share of income from non-Land sources -- some of which directly suffer as a result of the omnipotence of landowners (e.g., vehicle sales). Surely the balance is nowhere near tipped at this point, but if it ever does, landowners can kiss their precious, no longer functional orbs goodbye.

[Adamburp Adamczyk]

I once inquired about that with an orb maker, to send someone to a certain place as opposed to home, but unless they use RLV it's not possible.

 

I personally would LOVE an orb that would teleport an intruder to just above a water sim for them to fall in and get a bath.

[AlettaMondragon]

48 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Personally, I think Mainland should have granted landowners only very circumscribed powers over visitors, and that the Belli security protocol would have been better. Estates on the other hand could grant region or parcel owners whatever powers they want; nobody explores an Estate anyway, with very few exceptions.

This is especially interesting, because as I'm one of those very few that go to estates to explore as well, and my first thing to do at a new place is always to check the covenant or otherwise stated rules, I've noticed that many estates, and not only those connected to Mainland via the Blake Sea, but even smaller, 10-20 region estates have rules regarding vehicle use and security systems, which are similar to the rules on Belli and the United Sailing Sims estates, and the 3 most important and common were: 1, Orbs cannot be set to TP home, and must allow a certain time (usually above 30 seconds) to leave; 2, Orbs cannot reach higher than a certain altitude so that aircraft can pass freely (usually 50m above ground); 3, Banlines are disabled, and even individually banning someone should be consulted with the owner/manager first.

The only estates where I haven't seen such rules are those where there aren't roads, seas or any kind of infrastructure, so the usual residential housing sims.

[Pussycat Catnap]

12 hours ago, Marianne Little said:

I remember @Pussycat Catnaphad a long and very good post about 0 second, teleport home orbs. But she is using them in a very specific way.

I am sure she will clear up, if I post wrong about what I remember.

She has a skybox for private activity. She put this skybox inside another, much larger box and has 0 second, teleport home as soon as avatars enter the outside box. Because they have to do it on purpose, aviators that innocently fly and explore will see the huge box from a distance. So they go inside because they want to see what 2 green dots do there.

Yes. I am very specific about my use.

First my intention is to have a space where if it gets invaded, people are gone before I even know they are there.

Then, I want to make it as clear as I can BEFORE someone gets there, that the space is private.

To that end yes - a solid prim at a very out of the way elevation. If you fly up or into it, you just hit the edge of it and no harm to you. From the inside it's invisible because it's a single huge prim - so the texture on it only shows to the outside world. I put it way up there so people don't see that "visual blight" from the ground or the heights planes tend to fly at. But I often do make it look kind of intense from the outside... it's meant to look like something you'd rather not be around... AND remember it's important to set it up high above the height people tend to fly at - so aviators aren't looking at blight but have pleasant skies to enjoy.

- there are only 2 ways to get inside. First SL glitches and puts you in there. This... basically never happens. But it could. I don't worry about what this will do because it is so unusual.

Second, you purposefully teleport inside or cam in and use furniture to sit inside - despite that wall. So... for this person yes - there is no need to be "polite". I just zap them right out without comment. And yes, I TP them home so they're not just around me bothering about - they have to come and teleport back over and make a nuisance of themselves again.

- lastly. I restrict teleporting on my land, and set a landing point to at ground on the walkway to a house there. So teleporting inside that box takes effort - removing any innocence from the intruder (unless that theoretical glitch that I've yet to actually see in 11 years, finally occurs).

 

This orb...

gets 1-2 hits a YEAR.

- because the wall and the fact that it's only used way way way out of the way... means very few people encounter it, and among those who do, it's obvious to most of them that it's private space and they just move on.

This is despite the fact that at ground I get about 1-2 dozen people a week - because I have vehicles set up that you can drive off with.

- That's the key second part of the strategy... the 'attractive distraction'. Curious people who mean no harm are given a toy to enjoy and a location to enjoy looking at. That landing point is right near those vehicles.

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Pussycat Catnap

[Pussycat Catnap]

1 hour ago, Adamburp Adamczyk said:

I once inquired about that with an orb maker, to send someone to a certain place as opposed to home, but unless they use RLV it's not possible.

 

I personally would LOVE an orb that would teleport an intruder to just above a water sim for them to fall in and get a bath.

 

There are two LSL functions to teleport someone to a specific place, but they have to give permission. One teleports to the location of a landmark it's given, the other to a set of global coordinates (a SLURL basically).

- You can see this function in common use in the HUDs that people use to get into monthly events that are crowded (spamming a teleport faster than a human can, in hopes of hitting teleport before someone else does once a spot opens up).

 

[Pussycat Catnap]

20 hours ago, Solar Legion said:

As for a Parcel Wide "orb" system being set to Teleport Home over a simple ejection? The only answer that matters is as follows: Personal choice.

This is actually the example where I would be for a restriction.

I would like it if an orb that scans on the parcel value - could not use teleport home.

That said, these are different LSL functions and LSL is not the most sophisticated language - so making the teleport function aware of how it got the key value it's suppossed to teleport would be... difficult... (*) and without a major revision to LSL, someone could just hack it away by passing the key through a second or third function first...

Convert it to a string, add a silly word on the end, pass it to function 3 that removes the word and converts what's left to a key, then hand that to the teleporter... and any "reference" that this key should not be allowed to be teleported is likely lost... and if THAT failed... they could just use 2 scripts, one scans, says the value into a chat channel, the other teleports home any key said into the chat channel...

- preventing simple hacks like this would require a major revision to LSL to be more focused on tracking the objects in question like something like Angular or React would do and not just pointers to those objects like old C and such do, I think (I've been a programmer for 2 decades but never learned C because... it's not really used in Silicon Valley).

 

The other way to do this... would be if you could get Orb authors to write their orbs such that they obeyed the no teleport home unless the scanned coordinates where limited to less than parcel and also above 2000m in the sky... BUT... ANYONE can write an orb and it's actually extremely simple LSL... so you'd have to have Linden Labs get involved and restrict access to the teleport functions the same way they do to experiences.

- and my concern there is they would not understand my use case of a boxed off space, inside of which I do no-warning instant teleports because I first take steps to make sure no one enters the box on accident...

 

EDIT:

(*) Note: What it would need here to prevent abuse of teleporting home is a function tracinf.

You would make the teleport home function ONLY work if it's immediate calling function was from llSensor's response function, sensor, and NOT from any other method. If it was called from anywhere other than 'sensor' inside the 'default' it would just not work. Once so called, it would check the location of the avatar and if that avatar was closer then 1m from the parcel edge, also fail (why? To prevent teleports of people that drift from lag or somewhat more common glitches).

The most important thing is that teleport home should NEVER WORK if llGetAgentList is anywhere in the event history. This is the function that scans by region, parcel, and parcel owner - and that is how orbs that teleport home aviators and people driving on roads that are too close to parcels find themselves suddenly zapped.

 

I don't know if LSL does function history tracing... if it does... this is the LSL change needed.

 

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Pussycat Catnap

[Gabriele Graves]

4 hours ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

Yeah but that's fine.

There is a point where you have to accept this is enough, when it starts to negatively impact the many for the sake of the few.

Yes absolutely.  That's why I wrote this:

13 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

However, looking at it objectively, there is nothing stopping a person deliberately hovering outside her skybox but not on her land.  There would be nothing she could do about that.

And this:

13 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

So no doubt, it can be horrible when it happens but it raises the question, how far should we be able to go to make sure undesirable people cannot be near us?  If a person desires that level of privacy it can be had but it currently comes at the cost of purchasing/renting a private island.

 

 

[Gabriele Graves]

4 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I very genuinely admire your responses and thoughts on all of this, Gabriele. They are measured, thoughtful, and seek to reconcile the very real needs both of those who want or require privacy (as who does not?), and those who feel that the tools available for this, or at least the way in which some people wield them, represent an infringement upon the rights of others. We'll never find a perfect balance for these two -- we've been struggling to do so in RL for centuries, after all -- and there are the additional limitations of what is really feasible in terms of coding and affordance, but it would be nice to think that we can find a better way of managing this.

Thank you Scylla, it is very nice of you to say so.

Quote

SL was founded upon essentially libertarian principles, and the focus has always been, I think rightly, upon individual freedoms. The platform has been designed in such a way as to provide each of us with the most powerful tools possible to express that freedom, creatively, politically, sexually, and personally.

Somehow, however, we've shifted from the notion of "freedom" to that of "rights." (This latter idea is, as someone above noted, a bit of a red herring: we have no "rights" here, but merely the ability to do certain things, as provided by LL.) A more important observation on the "language" of "rights" that we see employed here is this:

When the concept of "rights" is used, it is too often evoked without an acknowledgment of the complementary principle, which is responsibility.

Most importantly, by that, I mean social responsibility: the acknowledgment that living with other people in a community or society is not merely about jealousy guarding and wantonly exercising all of our "rights," but also about working with others to produce a just and (relatively) harmonious civil society which not merely safeguards the rights we claim for ourselves, but also values and protects those of others. "Your rights" are meaningless in a culture which does not value the concept of "rights" for all.

Without this notion of civic responsibility -- our understanding that our own rights are best preserved by protecting those of others too -- we are no longer talking about "freedom" in a real sense, but rather about a sort of Hobbist contest of strength, in which "rights" are enforced, often arbitrarily, without any consideration of their impact upon others, and the damage they may be doing to our civil society as a whole.

It seems to me that this problem is at the root of the view we hear expressed here very often: "It's my 'right' to do whatever I want on 'my land,' and I therefore can't be held accountable for the fact that I've chosen to exercise them in a way that demonstrates that I'm an uncaring, inconsiderate jerk."

We can view "freedom" as an opportunity to work together for a balance that ensures that both individual and collective prosper together and in a complementary fashion. Or we can treat it as an invitation for a narrow individualistic understanding that equates "rights" merely with "power," and in which our interactions with others are ultimately nothing more than a struggle to determine who is strongest and most capable of projecting their will upon others.

I know which kind of culture I'd prefer to live in.

Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about.  I have come to believe that things that are truly our rights are not granted, they are inalienable even if they can be suppressed at times.  Things such as access, permissions and abilities (when speaking about a technical platform specifically) can be granted and revoked.

I find my self torn on the issue of teleport home myself.  I freely admit to having used it in the past but don't anymore.  My current security system, which I scripted myself, doesn't use it.  It doesn't use eject either. Instead it manages the ban system in an advanced way which stops anyone on my list from entering the parcel.  I have come to believe covers my need for privacy very well.

As a vehicle user myself, I know the only chance I have of being able to continue on my way after encountering a parcel where I am not welcome is with ban lines.  In most cases, I am able to back my vehicle out and rotate to a better heading using the Build/Edit tools.  This to me is the way that has least impact upon my enjoyment of SL.  I like the idea that we should be able to set our own draw distance for ban line visibility.

I also find myself agreeing with @Kyrah Abattoir that the available tools for the most part end up, in some cases, having too large an impact on someone else's enjoyment of SL.
I am not sure what better solution would look but like I think it needs to incorporate reliability in safely preventing the person from entering the parcel without hanging them, unseating them or any other nasty side effects and enough up front warning to allow for a change in direction.
 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Gabriele Graves
added more missing words.