Bellisseria and the Land Ban List

[Phil Deakins]

I have the Bellisseria covenant and I know that security devices are not allowed to automatically add avatars to the land's ban list, but are tenants allowed to add to the land's ban list manually, either by opening the About Land box and adding names by hand, or by typing names in a script's textbox?

[Kaylee Romano]

Yes, you can add people that you need to to that list. There’s also a security device in the contents box that in your mailbox that you can put out. 

[Phil Deakins]

Thank you, Kaylee. I don't have a Linden home of any kind. I create security devices. I do know that there is a security device included with Bellisseria homes but it's limited in what it can do.

I've been selling one for a few years that won't contravene the Bellisseria covenant. I'm currently in the process of upgrading it, and that's a question I needed confirmation about. Mostly, it won't be used in Bellisseria, of course, but I wanted to be sure about it.

[Quartz Mole]

6 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

Thank you, Kaylee. I don't have a Linden home of any kind. I create security devices. I do know that there is a security device included with Bellisseria homes but it's limited in what it can do.

I've been selling one for a few years that won't contravene the Bellisseria covenant. I'm currently in the process of upgrading it, and that's a question I needed confirmation about. Mostly, it won't be used in Bellisseria, of course, but I wanted to be sure about it.

Quote

 *Linden Homes do not have the ability to set your parcel access to group access only (which creates ban lines for everyone else). You can still eject and manually ban people by name in the parcel access settings in About Land options.
 *Security devices are only allowed if they comply with the following restrictions:
    -Minimum of 15 seconds warning time (no shorter)
    -Eject from parcel only (not teleport them home)
    -Effective range cannot include the airspace between 400m and 2000m (to allow for people to fly overhead but not in the airspace where skyboxes are allowed)
    -Does not add names of ejected persons to the parcel ban list automatically

Linden Lab Official:New Linden Homes 2019

And yes, you can add people to the parcel ban list  manually.   It's only the automatic bans we prohibit.     The security device we provide is fully compliant with the Bellisseria Covenant, so if you want to give your device extra capabilities, please check that they comply with the restrictions above -- we receive a lot of complaints about non-complaint devises, which we return when we find them. 

[Phil Deakins]

Thank you, Quartz. The device on sale does comply with the covenant, and so does the upgrade version that I'm working on, provided that the user sets the 'Bellisseria' option. I just wanted to make sure that tenants are allowed to actually use the land's ban list. When automatically removing avatars in Bellisseria, the device operates its own black list, but it can be used to add to the land's ban list by typing in the name and clicking a button. Anywhere else, it uses the land's ban list regardless.

10 hours ago, Quartz Mole said:

so if you want to give your device extra capabilities ...

From what I've read about the included security device, mine do a lot more, or I wouldn't be taking account of Bellisseria in them 

 

Edited August 6, 2023 by Phil Deakins

[Abnor Mole]

If the orb is automatically adding avatars to the orb blacklist (circumventing the normal warning time) then it is essentially the same as a parcel ban, just without the ban lines. Your device would need to prompt the owner if they wish to add avatars it detects to either the parcel ban list or to the orbs blacklist or both, rather than doing so automatically and indiscriminately. 

Essentially, if an individual is going to be immediately denied access to a parcel it needs to be based on an active decision by the owner to ban that individual on a case by case basis rather than a blanket banning of anyone who enters and/or is ejected. That should apply whether that denial is done by the parcel access list or by a scripted object.

The security section of the Bellisseria covenant is meant to encourage a presumption of innocence (or ignorance) before malice rather than the other way around; which is how many security orbs have historically been made or used and why they are often considered a bane on travel and exploration on mainland. One could argue that adding avatars to the orb's blacklist automatically doesn't violate the letter of the covenant; but it would still go against the spirt of the covenant to do so. If need be we would update the wording of covenant to reflect that, making devices that automatically add avatars to their blacklist non-compliant in both spirit and letter.

On a side note, in the years since the launch of Bellisseria and the security orb policy there my own personal experience when traveling across mainland has been with a notable reduction in the number of security orbs I encounter that teleport people home with no warning.

[Phil Deakins]

@Abnor Mole

#1. It's not an orb. It's a different shape, so it's a 'device'

#2. I've been creating and selling SL security devices for the last 16 years or so (even an orb-shaped one in earlier times  ), so I know all about issuing warnings before removal. But it's for the user to set the amount of time given for avatars to leave. It's not for the creator to force it. If a user wants to set it to 0 seconds, it's up to them. Settings are almost always up to the users of the devices, not the creators. As a creator, I'm not going to force the time allowed, except when the Bellisseria setting is set. In that case, the time allowed can't be set below 15 seconds. The current version of the device that I'm upgrading automatically recognises when it's in Bellisseria, but the upgraded one that I'm working on doesn't, because the method of recognising is in the land's data, which could be changed and not recognised. So, with the new version, it's up to the user to click the 'Bellisseria' button if s/he wants it to force compliance with the covenant. It's not the creator's responsibility to force it.

#3.

20 hours ago, Abnor Mole said:

One could argue that adding avatars to the orb's blacklist automatically doesn't violate the letter of the covenant; but it would still go against the spirt [sic] of the covenant to do so.

You mean like the security device included with Bellisseria homes? I assume they operate a black list, even a temporary one, or do they just eject and allow the ejected avatars to go straight back in? If they allow immediate return, it's a very poor design, which I'm sure wouldn't impress the users of it.

#4. I doubt that many people will want to use anything other than the device that comes with a Bellisseria home, but, judging by LL's text on that one, some devices, including mine, can do a lot more for Bellisseria users than that one. I don't know if other devices can be set to comply with the Bellisseria covenant but mine can. When set, the user can create protected areas that infringe the covenant, but the device won't remove anyone in those areas if they are in the free-fly zone. I am perfectly happy to make it so that the Bellisseria covenant is complied with to the letter. It's why I started this thread. But I have no interest in the unwritten "spirit of the covenant". That's entirely up to the users, not the creators.

In case you are not sure what I mean, users can set my devices to not ban avatars at all when they are removed. Again, selecting 'no ban' is entirely up to the user. It is not the responsibility of the creators to force it anywhere. Just out of interest, the user can set my devices to ban permanently, ban for a user-defined amount of time, or to not ban at all. But in all cases, a temporary ban is imposed, the length of which is user-settable. It's to prevent avatars from being nuisances by continually going back in (this is beginning to sound like an advertisement lol). It just occurred to me that I can make the temporary ban user-selectable as well, but, again, it would be entirely up to the user to select it, and not the creator to force it.

#5

20 hours ago, Abnor Mole said:

If need be we would update the wording of covenant to reflect that, making devices that automatically add avatars to their blacklist non-compliant in both spirit and letter.

You are sounding like we are on opposing sides, even though I'm doing everything to make my devices Bellisseria compliant. I wouldn't have started this thread if that were not true. But change the covenant if you want to. It won't make any difference to the Bellisseria legality of my devices, unless the covenant actually bans the use of all security devices except the supplied one, of course. If you are happy to force tenants to allow the occasional nuisance idiot to keep on going straight back in for another 15 seconds or more, until they get bored of doing it, change the covenant. I don't mind in the slightest. It sounds like that's what the supplied security device does allow, which is not good at all. The least it should do is keep ejected avatars out for a short period so that they can't be a nuisance.

Quite frankly, a device that doesn't do anything to keep avatars out after removing them is not a security device at all and should not be called one. From what you have said here, it sounds like Bellisseria homes do not come with a security device, and the device that is provided should not be called one.

#6 Incidentally, 15 seconds minimum is quite short in many people's opinions. How long before an avatar is removed is something that's been discussed a number of times in the forum, and many people's opinions were longer, even up to 30 seconds minimum.

ETA: With the upgraded device, using the temporary ban, or not using it, is now user-settable 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Phil Deakins

[Abnor Mole]

 

5 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

But I have no interest in the unwritten "spirit of the covenant"

Residents aren't always aware of the covenant and many just put out a device at it's default settings or try every option that it can do. Creators of devices very much should be concerned with the spirit of the law rather than just the letter of it if their products can be set in a way that goes against it's intent. When problems occurred with devices that automatically added avatars to the parcel ban list we updated the covenant to disallow use of that feature. We would do the same with any other features that became problematic.

It is in security device creator's best interests to design their features with both of those in mind. Disallowing settings in the Belisseria estate that are not allowed by the covenant and not introducing features that would do an end run around them or break the intent of why those restrictions are there in the first place means their devices won't be set incorrectly and are returned to their owner. Because yes... if it is decided that checking if devices are set incorrectly and responding to reports of incorrectly set devices it simply too onerous or widespread;  opting to change the covenant to disallow use of any device other than the one provided is where that would be going. 

We don't want to do that because we are not on opposite sides. We want creators to have a market for offering features our device does not. Creators just need to be thoughtful which features they offer and how they can be used or misused intentionally or unintentionally. That is why creators very much should have a huge interest in the spirit of the covenant.

[Dyna Mole]

7 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

You mean like the security device included with Bellisseria homes? I assume they operate a black list, even a temporary one, or do they just eject and allow the ejected avatars to go straight back in?

No, the Linden Homes Security System does not operate a black list.  It is there to block visitors that the parcel owner has not added to its whitelist.  An unwanted visitor is simply ejected.  We are not in the business of banning people from Bellisseria, even temporarily, for wandering into a private area.  Most people who trigger a security orb are not there to cause trouble.  They are just passing through. They are in the parcel just long enough to trip the system's warning. Our system's 15 second minimum is there to eject the few slowpokes who decide to linger despite the warning.

A landowner may of course decide to add a specific person to the parcel's ban list manually, but that a different matter. We assume that most people reserve that option for the small percentage of people who visit with bad intentions and who deserve a strong reminder not to come back.

[Phil Deakins]

@Abnor Mole

Making my devices comply with the Bellisseria covenant is something I have chosen to do, not for sales, because I think that there are very few there. It's just something that I chose to do since the Bellisseria covenant was discussed here some years ago. Between these posts I even made it so that the temporary ban can be turned off by the user. But I don't mind at all if a ban on the use of other security devices in Bellisseria, and/or a ban on automatic bans, however short, is added to the covenant. Creators offer them to SL, not just to Bellisseria tenants. Because of the device that comes with Bellisseria homes, I think that very few of the tenants would want a different one anyway. Most probably won't realise what they are missing, or they mistakenly think that the included device does the job they expect, or they aren't particularly bothered either way 

1 hour ago, Abnor Mole said:

It is in security device creator's best interests to design their features with both of those in mind. Disallowing settings in the Belisseria estate that are not allowed by the covenant and not introducing features that would do an end run around them or break the intent of why those restrictions are there in the first place means their devices won't be set incorrectly and are returned to their owner.

It isn't in my best interest . I have no intention of creating a completely different device just for Bellisseria. Any that are bought by Bellisseria tenants will include all the features of those that are sold to other people - including all the features that would break the covenant. It would be up to Bellisseria users to click the Bellisseria button to automatically prevent the device from breaking the Bellisseria rules. My instructions explain about Bellisseria, and I'm not going to force users to comply. That's not my responsibility.

I've decided that clicking the Bellisseria button won't disable the temporary ban because (a) there is no rule against blacklisting, (b) people expect ejected avatars not to be able to go straight back in, and (c) I think that allowing people to go straight back in time after time is particularly bad. The instructions will explain the 'spirit' of it, and users can choose to disable it. Or maybe I'll do it so that the button will disable it and an explanation appears that it can be turned back on. I'm not going to force that since it's not in the covenant.

You ought to be delighted that there is a device that can be set by the user so that it doesn't break the covenant

ETA: I meant to say this earlier. When I went over to get the current covenant a couple of days ago, I landed in an area that was absolutely superb. It had compressed soil paths instead of roads, and loads of greenery etc. I've no idea where it was but I take my hat off to whoever created it. It's absolutely gorgeous.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

@Dyna Mole

Thank you, Dyna. I'd come to that realisation from Abnor's post. I certainly surprised me, and I do think that it's a bad thing, but it is what it is

[Love Zhaoying]

55 minutes ago, Dyna Mole said:

No, the Linden Homes Security System does not operate a black list.  It is there to block visitors that the parcel owner has not added to its whitelist.  An unwanted visitor is simply ejected.  We are not in the business of banning people from Bellisseria, even temporarily, for wandering into a private area.  Most people who trigger a security orb are not there to cause trouble.  They are just passing through. They are in the parcel just long enough to trip the system's warning. Our system's 15 second minimum is there to eject the few slowpokes who decide to linger despite the warning.

A landowner may of course decide to add a specific person to the parcel's ban list manually, but that a different matter. We assume that most people reserve that option for the small percentage of people who visit with bad intentions and who deserve a strong reminder not to come back.

I really learned a lot from this one post, thank you!

[Gabriele Graves]

In my opinion security device creators should be making sure their devices are detecting that they are on the Bellisseria estate and adjust their functionality accordingly to comply or simply disable themselves.  The security devices I've made do this.  Perhaps that should be a condition of using third-party security devices that is written into the covenant.  I think leaving it up to the user to choose that they want a Bellisseria mode option is a subpar solution and bound to cause issues for them.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Gabriele Graves
missing phrase

[diamond Marchant]

24 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

In my opinion security device creators should be making sure their devices are detecting that they are on the Bellisseria estate and adjust their functionality accordingly to comply or simply disable themselves.

Excellent suggestion. Here is a snippet of code that clocks Bellisseria.

Quote

integer BELLESSERIA_ESTATE_ID_1 = 51561;
integer BELLESSERIA_ESTATE_ID_2 = 51814;

integer isBellisseria() {
    integer estateId = (integer) llGetEnv("estate_id");
    return estateId == BELLESSERIA_ESTATE_ID_1 || estateId == BELLESSERIA_ESTATE_ID_2;
}

 

[diamond Marchant]

9 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

#1. It's not an orb. It's a different shape, so it's a 'device'

Actually, I find "orb" to be appropriate as a common implementation uses llSensor or llSensorRepeat, which finds agents within a spherical (or cone) shape defined by a range and arc. In other words, orb describes the shape of the security perimeter rather than the shape of the object containing the script.

But it is an arbitrary distinction.

[Phil Deakins]

1 hour ago, Gabriele Graves said:

In my opinion security device creators should be making sure their devices are detecting that they are on the Bellisseria estate and adjust their functionality accordingly to comply or simply disable themselves.  The security devices I've made do this.  Perhaps that should be a condition of using third-party security devices that is written into the covenant.  I think leaving it up to the user to choose that they want a Bellisseria mode option is a subpar solution and bound to cause issues for them.

The Bellisseria compliant one that I've had on sale for a few years does that - auto-detects Bellisseria. I'm upgrading it at the moment and this version won't auto-detect it. The reason is that the auto-detection relies on the estate name never changing, which imo isn't something that I should rely on.

The current auto-detect version relies on the estate name being "Linden Homes 2", but diamond Marchant's post above this one suggests the estate id, of which there are two. I assume, therefore, that there are two  Bellisseria estate names, and that my auto-detecting version could never recognise one them. In time there may be more Bellisseria estate names.

The point is that those ids and names may be changed, so I can't consider them reliable enough. If LL would guarantee that they won't change or be added to, then I'd go back to auto-detecting, but that's not going to happen. So it's perfectly sufficient to give Bellisseria users the option of clicking the 'Bellisseria' button

Edited August 7, 2023 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

35 minutes ago, diamond Marchant said:

Actually, I find "orb" to be appropriate as a common implementation uses llSensor or llSensorRepeat, which finds agents within a spherical (or cone) shape defined by a range and arc. In other words, orb describes the shape of the security perimeter rather than the shape of the object containing the script.

But it is an arbitrary distinction.

In the very old days, that was true. The objects were spheres (orbs) and they protected a range/distance (sphere). My first one did that and its shape was an orb. Security devices got stuck with the word 'orb'. But that was a long time ago. Still a long time ago, security devices changed what they protected.

Mine stopped protecting spheres (range) a long time ago - not even as an option. For a long time, I've been selling several varieties. They can all protect the whole parcel, of course, but they can also protect a number of user-defined parcel-shaped 'levels' in the parcel column, a number of user-defined 'spaces', or a combination of those, but not a simple sphere. (A 'space' is the inside of a box but without the box. It can be tiny, such as protecting a single poseball, all the way up to 64x64x64. It can also be rotated so it doesn't have to align with the grid).

I'd be astonished if there are still any security devices being sold that only protect a range (sphere). I guess that some security devices are still orb-shaped but, even so, word 'orb' doesn't necessarily apply these day. Mine are not orbs in any way 

Also, none mine use the sensor function. They use llGetAgentList().

Edited August 7, 2023 by Phil Deakins

[Persephone Emerald]

2 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I really learned a lot from this one post, thank you!

I would've learned alot if I'd read the whole thread.

TLDR (aka I'm feeling lazy.)

Edited August 7, 2023 by Persephone Emerald

[Teresa Firelight]

I still find it a bit confusing why many people feel the need for security orbs. I have never once used a security orb in any of my linden homes and I have only had problems maybe three or four times ever. In those few instances, I just banned the offender manually.

[Phil Deakins]

3 minutes ago, Teresa Firelight said:

I still find it a bit confusing why many people feel the need for security orbs. I have never once used a security orb in any of my linden homes and I have only had problems maybe three or four times ever. In those few instances, I just banned the offender manually.

I don't use them either, but many people do.

[Persephone Emerald]

3 minutes ago, Teresa Firelight said:

I still find it a bit confusing why many people feel the need for security orbs. I have never once used a security orb in any of my linden homes and I have only had problems maybe three or four times ever. In those few instances, I just banned the offender manually.

I don't care if other people go onto my parcel when I'm not there. It's not like they can steal anything, go through my drawers or dirty my linens. I don't care if they fly through or drive their car over my lawn. If they become a pest, I can eject them and ban them from the parcel, which I've only had to do once in Bellisseria, when a naked guy kept cam-sitting on Aylcia's sofa and then making rude remarks. 

This is just me though. I can understand if others worry some stranger might wander in when they're dressing or "roleplaying" in their BDSM skybox.

[animats]

On 8/6/2023 at 7:30 AM, Abnor Mole said:

On a side note, in the years since the launch of Bellisseria and the security orb policy there my own personal experience when traveling across mainland has been with a notable reduction in the number of security orbs I encounter that teleport people home with no warning.

I've noticed that, too. I can usually fly over Satori, Zindra, and Corsica. Central Sansara, the oldest part of Second Life, remains a security orb headache. Especially on waterways.

[Phil Deakins]

@Abnor Mole

I've decided to do away with the blacklist altogether and go along with 'the spirit' of Bellisseria's covenant. I don't like it because I think that, when ejecting someone from the parcel, people expect that the avatar can't simply come straight back in. But Bellisseria is the only area where it would be used, and it does save a few k of script space, so I've completely removed it.

I do think that no auto-ban whatsoever, not even by using a blacklist, should be clearly written into the covenant, so that tenants can see exactly what to expect when avatars are auto-ejected by their security devices, and creators know what not to include in their devices. As the covenant is written now, auto-banning is definitely allowed, as long as it doesn't use the land's ban list. Neither creators nor tenants can be expected to know about the 'spirit' of it, and not knowing about it doesn't help anyone - not tenants and not creators. It should be made clear in the covenant.

Quite frankly, I feel inclined to do away with the 'Bellisseria' button, and just leave it to tenants to use the device as they choose. This, we wrote the rules, yes, but we expect people to understand more than we actually wrote,  isn't very impressive.

Edited August 8, 2023 by Phil Deakins

[Fionalein]

But an orb that sends me a notecard about repeated reentry attempts would be OK, right? Because I'd gladly add repeating offenders myself. And what about orbs that reduce the grace period until ejection for a short time after the first eject - would that be within the spirit of the covenant?

Edited August 8, 2023 by Fionalein

[Phil Deakins]

3 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

But an orb that sends me a notecard about repeated reentry attempts would be OK, right? Because I'd gladly add repeating offenders myself.

Huh? I've never heard of anything like that. Sending a notecard at all doesn't sound very good

Edited August 8, 2023 by Phil Deakins