Jump to content

Land Owner Forced Teleport Home


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 65 days.

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

Recommended Posts

I edited this into my last post but gonna make it it's own post also...

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 by Pussycat Catnap
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I hate hitting that in narrow waterways. Happened to me last night. I was trying to boat through the northern part of Sansara, which is a maze of little channels, and I'd get orbs telling me I had 5 s

i put here my vote for Linden to include an option to show parcel boundaries on the minimap in the Linden viewer, as was developed originally by Catznip and is now in other TPVs is the best thing

We brought that up at Server User Group today. 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.

Posted Images

17 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

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?

most of the angst over scripted Teleport Home/ Eject From Land  comes from vehicle users. They get killed/ejected/sent home and their vehicle is not also returned to them by the script

i don't have a Bellissaria Home at the moment to test this, but my understanding of how the Belli orb works is that, it first returns the vehicle to it's owner/rider. http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/LlReturnObjectsByOwner

and then ejects the vehicle owner/rider: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/LlEjectFromLand

if there was to be a rule change to alternative/private orbs then it could be a requirement of orb scripts to make the attempt to return the vehicle also

 

also I think that the biggest change would be to make a scripted call to Teleport Home / Eject to work the same way as does toggling parcel Access: Anyone can visit, when an agent is present on the parcel.  There is a built-in system delay of 15 seconds when we toggle

it could be that a script call to Teleport/Eject is delayed by the system for the same period of 15 seconds. So if a current script says "You have 30 seconds to leave" then the eject will effectively happened in 45 seconds.  A zero time script eject will happen in 15 seconds

which raises a question about zero-time orbs used in skyboxes. They are necessary at the moment because we can't ourselves set a pre-emptive exclusion zone (banline box) at a different level

suppose we could tho. Able to set the banline box either at ground level like now, or set the floor of the banline box to some height of our choosing above 2000m. Avatar visibility applying to the box in the sky same as it does now on the ground

and if one day Linden did work out how to bounce vehicles off banline boxes also then a lot of angst over all this will go away I think

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2020 at 8:45 AM, Scylla Rhiadra said:

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

Same here.  Your post veers into real life value systems, and while many would find that grossly off-topic in any thread, and even more so this one, I agree with you that really the two are intertwined.  Our decisions in-game are formed not just by the culture within, but by our value systems in the real world.

And this particular issue?  Well, I guess that can be summed up by the rhetoric being used to describe those that dare to cross borders, whether in real life or just SL parcel borders.  Are they to be vilified and called intruders?  A neutral term like explorers or wanderers?  Or the term that I prefer, guests?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this topic has wandered a little at this point.  Thanks to everyone for your thoughtful responses and great ideas.

To bring things back to the question I posed originally though, it doesn't seem as though there would be any additional critical use cases to be overly concerned about if teleport home were to be restricted to the estate level only.  The main reason being that on a private estate/island, there is no where else to move someone to with less impact.

Obviously, it would upset those people who could no longer teleport others home but I am not getting a strong feeling that the sky would fall over it, in a similar way it didn't in Bellisseria when general ban lines were disabled.

I am leaning towards that it could end up being a greater good overall.

As far as breakage is concerned, it wouldn't have to have a great impact.  Scripts in security systems that currently teleport people home would just fail to teleport and possibly shout an error on the DEBUG_CHANNEL about permissions.  Owners of those would have to choose one of the other available security measures and life would go on.  I think people reviewing what their security systems are doing is definitely a good thing.

Without doubt, vehicle users are certainly the most impacted by being teleported home.  However, as teleports often end up with logouts for many people, and always have, I can imagine there is certain amount of angst even amongst people who like to explore without a vehicle too.

It is a issue that we don't have many low impact security options available to choose from.  I doubt many genuinely decent people want to try to ruin someone's excursion over a unintentional trespass.   It would be counter-productive for us all as these are possibly the things that cause people to quit SL.
There is a balance to be weighed along this spectrum though as at one end there is the hapless visitor who means no harm when wandering and the other end where griefers are determined cause as much mischief as possible for the land owner.  Often they are subject to the same treatment which doesn't seem reasonable.  Having some new alternatives to address both ends of the spectrum would be a laudable goal in my opinion.

Obviously this is all academic but I believe it is still a good thing to often examine these issues and collectively decide on whether we like things the way they are or not.
 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And each response since this one just further proves the point the entire response was making - especially since people seem/seemed to wish to focus in on a singular segment instead of reading the entire thing, understanding what is being said and then responding or making their judgments ...

Mind, speaking only of the direct responses and those that dove tailed off of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I think this topic has wandered a little at this point.  Thanks to everyone for your thoughtful responses and great ideas.

To bring things back to the question I posed originally though, it doesn't seem as though there would be any additional critical use cases to be overly concerned about if teleport home were to be restricted to the estate level only.  The main reason being that on a private estate/island, there is no where else to move someone to with less impact.

Obviously, it would upset those people who could no longer teleport others home but I am not getting a strong feeling that the sky would fall over it, in a similar way it didn't in Bellisseria when general ban lines were disabled.

I am leaning towards that it could end up being a greater good overall.

As far as breakage is concerned, it wouldn't have to have a great impact.  Scripts in security systems that currently teleport people home would just fail to teleport and possibly shout an error on the DEBUG_CHANNEL about permissions.  Owners of those would have to choose one of the other available security measures and life would go on.  I think people reviewing what their security systems are doing is definitely a good thing.

Without doubt, vehicle users are certainly the most impacted by being teleported home.  However, as teleports often end up with logouts for many people, and always have, I can imagine there is certain amount of angst even amongst people who like to explore without a vehicle too.

It is a issue that we don't have many low impact security options available to choose from.  I doubt many genuinely decent people want to try to ruin someone's excursion over a unintentional trespass.   It would be counter-productive for us all as these are possibly the things that cause people to quit SL.
There is a balance to be weighed along this spectrum though as at one end there is the hapless visitor who means no harm when wandering and the other end where griefers are determined cause as much mischief as possible for the land owner.  Often they are subject to the same treatment which doesn't seem reasonable.  Having some new alternatives to address both ends of the spectrum would be a laudable goal in my opinion.

Obviously this is all academic but I believe it is still a good thing to often examine these issues and collectively decide on whether we like things the way they are or not.
 

The answer of course, is quite simple: Mandated minimum times (ten to fifteen seconds for small Parcels, up to thirty for larger ones) on Parcel Wide range.

And that's it. No need to hamstring/remove TP Home. No need to hamstring/remove Parcel Wide scanning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If minimum times are the answer then 10-15 seconds is nowhere near enough time for many situations.  I can attest to that personally.  I have no desire to be on anyone's land where they want to teleport me home and yet I have been in many situations where I have been informed by someone's orb that I have 15 seconds only to be teleported home anyway because I have no idea where it is coming from when I am flying around or lag or whatever even when scrabbling around to get away from it.

10-15 seconds might work for "some values of work" but nowhere near good enough in my opinion.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What it boils down to is landowners can decide to allow or disallow access however they like, as confirmed by LL

 

Also orbs with zero second timers are perfectly legal, as their own governance team have confirmed at those meetings.

 

This subject has been discussed since the dawn of SL and will be continually discussed forever more.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone here already knows that belinda.  This discussion is about whether SL should change with regards to teleport home and not what people are currently able and allowed to do.

Edited by Gabriele Graves
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Obviously, it would upset those people who could no longer teleport others home but I am not getting a strong feeling that the sky would fall over it, in a similar way it didn't in Bellisseria when general ban lines were disabled.

Bellisseria is just a small number of regions compared to the 16000 private regions so don't expect to set any new standards in regards to lsl commands and parcel owners abilities.
Bellisseria has its own Linden Homes Covenant that people must know and follow (although many don't but that\s a problem for Linden Lab to solve).
Private Regions have their own Covenant and the Mainland or Linden Homes Covenants does not apply to them.
 
Now regarding ban lines they are practically useless when it comes to Mainland Regions due to the rules and conditions that Linden Lab has set in regards to their usage.
In the provided photo i am in a Mainland Parcel that has Group members access only enabled (=ban lines enabled) and although i am not a group member as you can see i am inside the parcel and on that persons platform (could be a skybox or whatever, the form of the object doesn't matter.)
 
That leaves the parcel owner security system with 2 options, either use llEjectFromLand  which in this case if someone has Movelock enabled is practically useless because the avatar will be back on the platform with 1 second or use llTeleportAgentHome and send me to my home location making it a little harder for me to come back each time that i am send back home.
If LL decides to remove llTeleportAgentHome then the only realistic option that this parcel owner will have when someone enters their Mainland parcel and doesn't leave, will be to file an Abuse Report and wait until a Linden will be available to come and set things straight (= more work for linden support personnel and more frustration for the parcel owner.).
Such commands exist for a reason and will never be obsolete.
 

Screenshot_2020-09-25_17-38-59.thumb.png.e96b607295f2f465a25066f32dc828d3.png

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ban lines aren't useless depending on how you use them, they can be extremely effective if you script them correctly.
General ban lines aren't very effective if you build above 50m granted but presumably someone who wants them wouldn't do that, right?

Nick, I think I disagree with pretty much everything you said on the subject but thank you for sharing your opinions.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pussycat Catnap said:

Anything above 0 is too much time for any situation in which you actually want a person removed.

 

Yes, I understand.  I think you missed the context though.  This topic is about having a gentler way of doing that instead of teleport home.  Solar gave the opinion that all that was needed was 10-15 seconds on an orb before teleporting them to which I pointed out that it wouldn't end up being sufficient to avoid being teleported home and therefore not a gentler removal after all.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

if  parcel Teleport Home was removed and there was only estate level Teleport Home then I think that a consequence could be that parcel level security scripts would change to llAddToLandBanList

basically anyone else on/over the parcel is scripted to be automatically added to the parcel ban list. Script maintains an internal  list of persons added. When the parcel banlist is full then llRemoveFromLandBanList the first entry, adding the person now on/over the parcel

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

if  parcel Teleport Home was removed and there was only estate level Teleport Home then I think that a consequence could be that parcel level security scripts would change to llAddToLandBanList

basically anyone else on/over the parcel is scripted to be automatically added to the parcel ban list. Script maintains an internal  list of persons added. When the parcel banlist is full then llRemoveFromLandBanList the first entry, adding the person now on/over the parcel

 

 

Bingo!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Except a refinement to this, which I have done is to only add people to the ban list when they appear in the region and remove them again later.  You don't need to run out of ban list slots then.  Your ban list is a notecard.

i think that most parcel owners generally will not bother with notecards, They will go with what is easiest for them. Set the script running and then forget about

if parcel owners did bother about any particular person then I think it would be more toward removing the person from the parcel banlist if the parcel owner has sufficient reason to bother to do this

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

 

i think that most parcel owners generally will not bother with notecards, They will go with what is easiest for them. Set the script running and then forget about

if parcel owners did bother about any particular person then I think it would be more toward removing the person from the parcel banlist if the parcel owner has sufficient reason to bother to do this

Sure, the notecard bit is just to fit my particular needs.  The point was that the ban list doesn't need to be cycled when you run out of slots.  You only need the system to add the people you want to ban when they show up at the region.  You can always make sure that a person you don't want to get in doesn't get in because you dropped them off the list due to cycling that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

You can always make sure that a person you don't want to get in doesn't get in because you dropped them off the list due to cycling that way.

yes thats true.  I was more thinking about it as a automagic alternative to scripted teleport/eject if these methods were disallowed/deprecated

i think automagic add to ban list would probably be seen as more aggressive than plain eject. Not only is the person ejected but also banned, which could result in lots of towers of banlines at every height for wandering explorers. Which might become problematic on estates like Bellissaria if this kind of security orb became universal

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mollymews said:

i think automagic add to ban list would probably be seen as more aggressive than plain eject. Not only is the person ejected but also banned, which could result in lots of towers of banlines at every height for wandering explorers. Which might become problematic on estates like Bellissaria if this kind of security orb became universal

I am not sure I have explained this very well.  There are two lists in my system.  One is the parcel ban list and one is just a list of people on a notecard or in script memory if you prefer.  After you add someone to the notecard or script memory, the system then manages the parcel ban list to make sure they stay banned no matter how many people you added to that notecard or script memory.  It does this by detecting that the avatar entered the region (llGetAgentList) and adding them to the parcel ban list at that point, removing them when they leave the region so that no matter how many people you have on your list, it is always possible to make sure all of them stay banned and they can see that as they approach those areas.

My system doesn't blanket ban everyone, it could but I don't enable that because it is intrusive to others for no good reason.

The policy should already be that on Bellisseria you are not allowed to use something like this to ban everyone from the whole parcel, I have said previously that I would expect LL to return the systems found doing that because it breaks the spirit of the no general ban lines decision.  Is it OK in Bellisseria to ban everyone sky-boxes with an orb?.  I am not clear on whether this is OK or not but I am sure there will be people who do it anyway.

My system has two parts to it though.  The first as outlined above deals with people you specifically ban.  The second deals with areas that are off-limits to anyone not on an access list.  These are not people you have banned from the whole parcel.  Both can be applied to the same parcel at the same time and multiple areas can be defined.

This second part only bans someone not on the access list 15 seconds after they enter an off-limits area and until they leave the region, then removes them from the ban list so they can re-enter later where access is allowed such as ground level.  They are notified before and after with what happened and told that leaving the region will restore access to public areas.  It is only intended to be used in sky-boxes/inside of dwellings where people don't just wander.
I think this is a pretty good solution with what is available.  It would be better and I would prefer if ban lists allowed areas to be defined though because then a person would be able to see that upfront before attempting to enter but it is what it is.  When I first added this feature, I used eject instead of ban but it does mean that repeated attempts to enter keep having to be repelled.  This is one part where I think it could be subject to be configurable between eject/ban/timed-ban depending of the use case.  I personally like being able to make the whole system work using just one security feature though and currently have only implemented ban.

This has been tested over a pretty long period of time and there don't seem to be many problems with this approach in practice.

With this in mind I don't think towers of ban lines would be a reality and I don't think this could be more jarring to anyone than being teleported home.

Please bear in mind that I don't live in Bellisseria and haven't for some time, I always had other mainland parcels which was what this system was developed with in mind.  I am certainly not advocating it's use for Bellisseria and never used it there.  I don't currently sell my system and don't have any plans to do it short term (so it is not a veiled advert for a product either!).

However I don't think there is anything here that could cause much concern if others implemented a similar scheme, especially if it, hypothetically it could mean that nobody gets teleported home any more.  It does however, complicate the scripting somewhat of course but doesn't use any more script time than any other system and it is fundamentally reactive to what llGetAgentList() produces.
 

Edited by Gabriele Graves
Corrections.
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

i just say that I don't use any kind of scripted device to eject/teleport/ban anyone from my mainland parcel

I do tho like your (Gabriele) approach to being as considerate as you can to others in the design of your device. Your design for sure is more considerate than summarily sending people home

when I need privacy for myself then as I have mentioned before I have a sub-parcel on my main parcel for this. Is 8 x 8 meters. When I need to then just on the sub-parcel: About Land \Access: Anyone can visit, toggled off.  Toggle it back on when not needed by me

the only person on my parcel banlist is Governor Linden. A system quirk is that one person is required to be banned to prevent anyone on the parcel over the banline box seeing my avatar inside the banline box when About Land \ Options \ Parcel Visibility is off. So Governor Linden it is

my view is that rather than suggesting to Linden to nerf what we have already then how might what we have be changed, leading to an outcome on other people that is more considerate

in the Eject case for example.  The way it tosses the intruder into the air could be made more considerate The toss seems to be some remnant of lulz from the olden days.  The intruder could just be placed outside of the parcel. The lulz might have been funny back in our youth or youth-adjacent days, but we are all 17 years older now, even if some of us individually will never grow up at least in what tickles our funny bones

in the banline box case. At the moment it is a fixed height. 50 meters approx. tall. I don't need a 50 meter tall banline box. I would like to be able to lower the top. A slider for example: min 5 metres. max 50 metres. I would set mine to 5 meters. If anyone is flying lower than this then they are going to hit my buildings anyway

+

just add that what I have mentioned  about uncaring scripted automagic add to parcel banlist is the kind of thing that can happen when existing methods get nerfed without considerate alternatives being introduced - unintended consequences.

unintended consequences cause the greatest angst/problems when the worst consequence is at the end of the easiest path to travel

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2020 at 3:30 PM, Gabriele Graves said:

I was having a conversation with someone about the ability for land owners to force teleport an avatar home as part of their security system.
This is obviously different to an avatar interacting with an object that asks permission to teleport someone - that is a different thing, is not forced and was not part of that discussion.

It is a very polarizing feature (surprise, surprise).  Obviously those who TP people home from their land feel happy with the feature others, such as vehicle users, see it as a scourge and would rather be bounced by ban lines or ejected to an adjacent accessible parcel instead of being sent home.  The opinion has been floated before that whilst a land owner has the right to say that they don't want a person on their land, it doesn't necessarily follow that they should be able to choose where they go unless there is only a single choice available.

I tried to enumerate the use cases I knew of where ban and/or eject are not enough and force teleport home is necessary.

The main one I could come up with is an estate/private island owner who wants to teleport someone off their entire estate/island.  Eject would be pointless.  I presume that an estate ban would also teleport the person home and could be used instead but for estate/island owners who use implement an Experience, the ability to teleport someone home if they do not accept the Experience is important as they probably don't want to estate ban that person.

After that I kind of ran out of steam.  What, if any, are the other critical use cases?

Hypothetically, if the ability to teleport someone home required estate level permissions only (including from scripts) and everyone else had to make do with eject and/or ban what else would break?  Would the sky fall and fire rain down from the heavens?

I am a mainland land owner and I know it wouldn't affect me at all but I am interested to find out what I might have missed.
 

It's hard to believe, but long ago and far away in this *same* galaxy, when I and others hugely annoyed at security scripts ruining the Mainland experience kept petitioning Philip Linden about them, he actually agreed that they should be deprecated. That is, the ability to bounce *period* -- not just "away" or "home" but *at all*. We were heartened, but then various other Lindens and Linden groupies began to lobby him furiously not to do that. They claimed that push was "vital" to have for...elevators. At that time, as I often pointed out, there weren't more than a half dozen elevators in SL and they weren't "vital" such as to have that function annoying everybody especially on waterways and roads making travel impossible. Nobody hardly used those clunky, jerky elevators -- and still don't -- and it was no reason to warp the entire experience around that edge case.

So because the Lindens of those years never met a script they didn't like, the bounce script remained. I could note that one prominent maker of security orbs funded the forums of some very well connected residents and Linden alts and they lobbied heavily to keep it as it was this merchant's bread and butter. So this was an impossible cartel to get around.

We would periodically bring up the point that orbs could be made not to teleport home, like a game in which you are killed and sent back home (the archetype from which this action is taken), but just bounced lightly away with a message. 

What is the use case for teleporting home, besides making it more like a game in which you "die," which was the ardent wish of the early nerds?

Well, on the Mainland, griefers would usually hang around and continue to grief you from a neighbouring parcel. So you ban them from one parcel, they hop to another, and you chase them around, trying to keep up with them, unable to click on them, and not able to put their names in the ban list fast enough before they fire-prim the sim, which (at that time) started sending back some items to inventory (a bug of sorts).

They would also hang around on nearby Linden land which was like a "safe" area for them because no one could ban them there, least of all Lindens, who never ban from Linden land, ever. (A shame, given the havoc at some info hubs and welcome areas).

So the theory was that if the miscreant was teleported all the way home, he would get distracted and not bother to come back. At least that would give you time to put his name in the other parcels. Often, the TP home would make him crash (which is why people on boats especially HATED this).

Fast forward, here we all are, and the furthest we have come is that Patch has recently posted that if people don't stop teleporting home with their orbs in Belli (if I understood correctly, that's what he means by "configured properly"), then only the Linden orbs that don't do that at all and default to bouncing only will be legal, and other third-party orbs will be outlawed and sent back to inventory when found. Not ideal -- frankly, it would be better -- if I could return to this subject  -- if the *bounce script could be deprecated completely from SL as Philip once promised*.

You encounter ban lines and cannot walk further. No bouncing, not teleporting home.

Edited by Prokofy Neva
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2020 at 10:58 PM, Lindal Kidd said:

Why yes...yes I am.

People complained about my hornet swarm pushing people to the property edge. I wonder if I should enable life and script the hornets to do damage, so that after so many "stings" you die and are sent home.

Talk about realism 😆

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

People complained about my hornet swarm pushing people to the property edge. I wonder if I should enable life and script the hornets to do damage, so that after so many "stings" you die and are sent home.

Talk about realism 😆

Another option is to enable the Green Access ban lines and make some profit as well.
"Oh you like my house and want to come in? Sure why not after you pay L$1000 you can stay for a 10 minutes.."
 
giphy-31.gif
Edited by Nick0678
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 65 days.

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...