Any Options Or Workaround To Deal With Ban/Eject Bots?

[Codex Alpha]

While exploring the mainland parcels, looking for land or rent, or just exploring sometimes I run into those parcel ban bots, and although they're supposed to give some reasonable time to leave the property most people seem to have them set at like 5 seconds...

then it teleports you home.

Not a big deal but sometimes you found something interesting nearby, or were looking at a plot of land, and have no idea how to get back to that.

Would prefer people just put ban lines around their properties, because then you can just fly around it, but flying through it they'll nail and teleport you way too quick, then you lost your place..

Yes trying to use the teleport back button doesn't work because of course you're right back into the eject bot's range and they do it again lol

Desired behaviour: Set a default custom teleport target if ejected. OR better, eject to a nearby location in same region, so you don't lose your place during exploration (a big draw for me and others who like exploring - dont discourage us!)

If we're going to give people power over your avatar, then it needs to be balanced with inconveniencing our ability to fly freely around an ASSUMED open world. ASSUMED because it is all open, and not single instances loaded up on demand.

Programmatically find the nearest plot of land without ban lines or restrictions, and teleport to that target instead of home.

STOP DERAILING THE POST

1) There was no request to remove eject or ban powers

2) There was no request for people to freely enter your parcel, nor assume any right to enter  your parcel

PS. Ahhh I see what I did wrong. This post was intended for the Answers Forum and should have been made there. My bad!

Edited May 19, 2022 by Codex Alpha

[Odaks]

8 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

they're supposed to give some reasonable time to leave the property most people seem to have them set at like 5 seconds...

Sadly, on mainland, they're not supposed to do anything at all towards being reasonable. Parcel owners are completely free to blow you away the moment you stick a bit of yourself in their parcel, and many do exactly that! That's one of the main reasons that Linden Homes in Bellisseria are so popular - that is prohibited there (a minimum 15 seconds warning, NO teleporting home, and other covenant restrictions apply too).

However, I do lose a bit of sympathy with random parcel hoppers who never take any effort to find out about what they are about to jump into, and then play merry hell because they got chucked out (wrong avatar, wrong style of dress, wrong sex... you name it!). When you say you are exploring, I take it you mean that you are wandering the roads and public spaces, looking for land for sale, interesting looking builds etc, so probably don't fall foul of this?

Map-click teleporting without a bit of previous research can, however, be fraught with danger and the lack of any sensible control of security systems on mainland is the constant scourge of drivers, sailors and flyers.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Odaks
spelling!

[belindacarson]

Short answer: zero time eject/ban/teleport home on the mainland is 100% okay and "legal".  Governance confirmed that at their meetings.

[Mollymews]

11 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

Desired behaviour: ... eject to a nearby location in same region ...

Programmatically find the nearest plot of land without ban lines or restrictions, and teleport to that target instead of home.

many parcel security orbs have the option to Eject or to Teleport Home.  The Linden Homes orb does eject only.  Eject does what you say, is already built into system - eject the person to the neighbouring parcel

on mainland, as you are finding, some orbs are set to Teleport Home. Which is not against ToS

nor is against ToS for a robot guard to set the parcel to Damage which is also built into the system, and blast us (the random visitor) to pieces. Which will also teleport us home when enough damage has been inflicted on our avatar

[Codex Alpha]

Welp the usual responses to an average use and activity in Second Life. Exploring.

Scratch that off the list of activities to do in SL. Now even less to do.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Codex Alpha

[Love Zhaoying]

6 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Well than, I've been told! Just another thing to not bother doing an activity in Second Life. No problem. It's desired behaviour and 'legal', so I guess I just won't fly around randomly exploring SL.. Just another nail in the coffin and less enjoyment. Oh well - typical SL

If you stick to Linden public roads, and don't wander onto people's property, you will never get ejected. 

If the land you explore looks like "retail"/public space (not homes), you're not likely to get ejected.

If you check the "about land" then you may also see hints. 

If you are exploring "private parcels" - with what look like homes, you are more likely to get ejected.

[Codex Alpha]

3 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

If you stick to Linden public roads, and don't wander onto people's property, you will never get ejected. 

If the land you explore looks like "retail"/public space (not homes), you're not likely to get ejected.

If you check the "about land" then you may also see hints. 

If you are exploring "private parcels" - with what look like homes, you are more likely to get ejected.

No time for that garbage and the average Second Life user, and especially the paying ones, shouldn't have to worry about that.

If SL is advertised as a big world, then it should be open to everyone, and if ban lines or ejects are encountered, that they are treated with respect and care.

I also wasn't talking about, complaining about, or asking for ban lines or ejects to be eliminated - I was asking for measures that wouldn't disrupt my honest enjoyment of Second Life, and this is the type of responses I get.

Without exploring, it's less for me to enjoy about Second Life (and others too), and also one person would be out of a rental I found and other a parcel sale.

I also don't have to justify an activity that is common in Second Life.

[Love Zhaoying]

13 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

No time for that garbage and the average Second Life user, and especially the paying ones, shouldn't have to worry about that.

If SL is advertised as a big world, then it should be open to everyone, and if ban lines or ejects are encountered, that they are treated with respect and care.

I also wasn't talking about, complaining about, or asking for ban lines or ejects to be eliminated - I was asking for measures that wouldn't disrupt my honest enjoyment of Second Life, and this is the type of responses I get.

Without exploring, it's less for me to enjoy about Second Life (and others too), and also one person would be out of a rental I found and other a parcel sale.

I also don't have to justify an activity that is common in Second Life.

I'm sorry, I mistook your need to complain with a request for advice. 

[Mollymews]

16 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

 I was asking for measures that wouldn't disrupt my honest enjoyment of Second Life

the measures you asked for are a standard feature of the Linden Homes continent. Is lots to enjoy there

mainland is not so enjoyable when we are a free traveling cross-country kind of person

i travel quite a lot on mainland and stick to the public-right-of-ways of which there are heaps. I feel the same way about SL private property as I do about RL private property which SL simulates. If I go over somebody's boundary line in RL and get attacked by their guard dog then I expect there to be no reason why the same thing cant happen to me also in SL

Edited May 19, 2022 by Mollymews
by

[Codex Alpha]

I find it strange to have an open world where we can assume to travel freely but then be shot out of the sky and sent home by some random parcel we crossed.

Perhaps if this is what people want (and seemingly increasingly so) then LL could move into private parcel and world deliveries similar to Sansar experiences, where the only access to load up the instance. No point maintaining a large world having to process objects and homes and scripts on nearby parcels or within your range of sight, if you're just going to be ejected, shot down, banned on site by some random 'land' owner in SL.

That way people can truly have their 'privacy' ensured and LL doesn't need to waste resources serving up assets and such that no one is going to see anyway.

Just as we speak, I not only got ejected but insta-banned for 60  minutes just for flying over a parcel. oh Second Life... so friendly and welcoming! I haven't been exploring for a long time, but it certainly seems things have changed. Need some bulletproof armor to stop getting shot down while flying around.

 

Edited May 19, 2022 by Codex Alpha

[Anicha Heartsong]

We need a "right to roam." Why can't we have more open public spaces in some areas, perhaps whole continents like that? People who want walls and force-fields around their patches of land to somehow 'protect' themselves  can go live in areas where there is no passing traffic at all.

 

[Alwin Alcott]

1 hour ago, Codex Alpha said:

I find it strange to have an open world where we can assume to travel freely

but it isnt a open world ... who told you that it means unlimited access to everything and everywhere?

[Anicha Heartsong]

1 hour ago, Mollymews said:

If I go over somebody's boundary line in RL and get attacked by their guard dog then I expect there to be no reason why the same thing cant happen to me also in SL

Because this isn't real life. If someone comes onto your property they literally cannot steal anything. They cannot harm you. You can eject them effortlessly if they are being a nuisance.

People bring an awful lot of baggage into SL - including an almost pathological need to 'defend' their patch of virtual land against all-comers. They buy a nice plot and then throw up ugly, unfeasible walls all around it so that no one can see in. Except that they can, of course.

It's kinda weird, don't you think?

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Anicha Heartsong said:

Because this isn't real life. If someone comes onto your property they literally cannot steal anything. They cannot harm you. You can eject them effortlessly if they are being a nuisance.

People bring an awful lot of baggage into SL - including an almost pathological need to 'defend' their patch of virtual land against all-comers. They buy a nice plot and then throw up ugly, unfeasible walls all around it so that no one can see in. Except that they can, of course.

It's kinda weird, don't you think?

Does this reveal part of why people purposefully annoy others who desire "privacy"?  Because they "can", and resent the "pathological" desire for "privacy"?

[Alwin Alcott]

Just now, Anicha Heartsong said:

It's kinda weird, don't you think?

no it isn;t, you say it yourself already
 

Quote

People bring an awful lot of baggage into SL 

they simply want their own life in hand, and not be bothered by others on their property. Or find squatters using their stuff like they are at home.  .. or name anything why people want to live as hermits...

But you are of course totally free to start buying lands ( with a open community group for example) and create those large open lands to roam around. Really nobody is preventing that. But for many; not on my lawn.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Codex Alpha said:

open world where we can assume to travel freely

I see now, there's your problem!

It ain't (open), and you shouldn't (assume).

Example: Private regions (non-mainland) can be completely private; not open one bit. You can't even get close enough to be ejected.

[Aishagain]

3 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

No time for that garbage and the average Second Life user, and especially the paying ones, shouldn't have to worry about that.

'bye then.

Let me elaborate.  I have wandered the highways of Second Life mainland via the Linden roads and via the map for years and I think I can number the times that I have been hammered by aggressively set security orbs on the fingers of both hands.  There is a LOT of empty land on Mainland these days and I always know where I've been.

I do find those aggressive orbs a pain when I'm flying, thanks to skanky region crossings.  Solution?  I fly a little higher.  Most orbs have a ceiling but I have no idea whether that's an SL standard or just a "good manners" convention.

I just don't find it a real problem and I have never felt I was entitled to go entirely where I pleased after my first couple of months in SL.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Aishagain
Elaboration

[Anicha Heartsong]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Does this reveal part of why people purposefully annoy others

No, it doesn't. I never go onto other people's property or impose their privacy.

But I also never put up ban lines or install security orbs.

[Qie Niangao]

1 hour ago, Anicha Heartsong said:

We need a "right to roam." Why can't we have more open public spaces in some areas, perhaps whole continents like that? People who want walls and force-fields around their patches of land to somehow 'protect' themselves  can go live in areas where there is no passing traffic at all.

I've often said that LL missed an opportunity on Mainland in not setting a covenant similar to Bellisseria's, thus motivating folks who desire privacy to go to Estates catering to that specific market. They'd have made much more money: the Mainland would be somewhat smaller, probably, and Estates somewhat larger, but net/net greater revenue. That's because Estates could easily absorb 100% of the privacy market, and a "roaming-friendly" Mainland could serve an explorer market that currently isn't served well anywhere (Estates are too small; Bellisseria exploration is a thing, but not the same as the kind of diverse content Mainland has—even more so if Mainlanders were necessarily building for a roaming audience).

But that's all water under the bridge, not going to change, not worth getting angsty about.

[Rowan Amore]

2 hours ago, Aishagain said:

 

I just don't find it a real problem and I have never felt I was entitled to go entirely where I pleased after my first couple of months in SL.

I learned early on that some places are private.  Being tped home for the first time was a rather interesting experience.  It didn't prevent me from heading out again but this time, a bit wiser.

In the 12 years since, I've probably been ejected less than a handful of times.   I have my orb set to 60 seconds.  More than enough time for anyone flying over my tiny parcel.  No problem there.  However, if I'm home and you come into my house, I WILL eject and ban you.  I find that extremely rude.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Rowan Amore

[Codex Alpha]

8 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

 I have my orb set to 60 seconds.  More than enough time for anyone flying over my tiny parcel.

I think that if people feel they need such a device, than that is fine. A  setting on eject times so that other people's experience of SL isn't abruptly ended just because they flew over a random parcel, is not an unreasonable request.

My issue was first that if I get hit by one of those (set at 0-5 seconds, which are plenty otherwise why would I post?), that I am not sent to my home, and lose my place where I was exploring but to be ejected to a nearby parcel instead.

I appreciate the responses that educated me on how some of these orbs work, that some are private and others are LL based, and the rest of the posts unrelated to my actual issue will be ignored.

We all need to be moving towards reasonable behaviours to keep SL open and friendly, and if we're going to allow control over other people's avatars that it is done in a fair and courteous way.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Codex Alpha

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

My issue was first that if I get hit by one of those (set at 0-5 seconds, which are plenty otherwise why would I post?), that I am not sent to my home, and lose my place where I was exploring but to be ejected to a nearby parcel instead.

I think it would be great if there were an option to "eject" someone just to the nearest "public" parcel.  

[Codex Alpha]

@Love Zhaoying That's kinda all I wanted in my OP before it got all twisted up in responses. It's the best of both worlds. Isn't treating people with respect in Second Life something that is always promoted, but not always in action or policy?

[Aishagain]

8 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

That's kinda all I wanted in my OP before it got all twisted up in responses. It's the best of both worlds. Isn't treating people with respect in Second Life something that is always promoted, but not always in action or policy?

Respect cuts both ways.

And the security orbs on Mainland are governed by LL's rules but are not owned by LL.  The timers are set by folk who sometimes display a degree of paranoia that closely resembles "passive aggression". 

[Mollymews]

11 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

I've often said that LL missed an opportunity on Mainland in not setting a covenant similar to Bellisseria's  ... a "roaming-friendly" Mainland could serve an explorer market that currently isn't served well anywhere ... Bellisseria exploration is a thing, but not the same as the kind of diverse content Mainland has—even more so if Mainlanders were necessarily building for a roaming audience

But that's all water under the bridge, not going to change ...

picking up on this

i agree that attempting to undo past decisions that have influenced the present is pretty fraught

when I think about roaming-friendly I think about places like Chilbo back in its heyday.  The Chilbo community town observed rule was no banlines and no orbs. Should only use the parcel banlist for repeat offenders, using tempban the first few times, before moving to permaban if we must. The community ethos being visitors, and town residents, able to roam freely in the town without restriction, including in and out of all of the parcel builds in the town

if we level this up to Linden level then we talking about a estate continent(s). And maybe this is the way for it to go. When Linden finish building out Linden Homes estate then maybe they provide roaming-friendly estate continent(s) as a new service

like the parcel access controls only enable the ban list. Everything else access-wise is disabled.  Camera, open chat and voice constraints also disabled.  Scripted text and sounds (MOAP as well) can be restricted to parcel. We don't need a scripted text/sound or MOAP tutorial/experience spilling over into the neighbouring parcels. Right-click freeze and right-click eject also disabled

when we add a person to a parcel banlist while they are present then is a 15 second system delay and a system warning to vacate the parcel. Which is sufficient I think

i think it would be a violation of the estate covenant to eject (add to parcel banlist) a visitor without good cause

a good cause isn't that I was standing nekkid on my pose stand, or snuggling with my friend on the couch, and some visitor came into the room

a good cause for ejection tho is if they  are nekkid and the region is rated G. Or the region is rated M and they got their A rated bits hanging out. Or they decide to join in to the snuggle without asking

this covenant could be fairly easily enforced from the pov of Linden Governance. Should a visitor file an Abuse Report about being ejected/banned then the logs tell the story

i think that such an estate would attract parcel owners like community groups/activities and merchants. And people who just like to live in a town and garden setting who don't mind random visitors popping in to their homes. And it would attract roaming visitors

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by Mollymews
typs