Bellisseria and the Land Ban List

[Phil Deakins]

27 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I am trying to read between the lines here. Did you think, "it is still OK to ban avatars using some other list, so long as it is not the parcel ban list"? 

Please try to be a little less insulting and condescending. I know you can!

I was not trying to be insulting, but you did post as though you weren't fully aware of the covenant or the whole discussion here.

According to the covenant, yes it is perfectly ok to use a means of automatically banning avatars that does not use the land's ban list. It is only Abnor Mole who says differently, by citing the 'spirit' of the covenant, but not the covenant itself. He should know, and I can't ignore it, so I have to accept it.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Phil Deakins

[Abnor Mole]

4 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

banning by using a blacklist is absolutely allowed according the to covenant.

If the orb added them to the automatically blacklist it removes the require 15 second warning time, making it non-compliant.

[Love Zhaoying]

17 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

According to the covenant, yes it is perfectly ok to use a means of automatically banning avatars that does not use the land's ban list. It is only Abnor Mole who says differently, by citing the 'spirit' of the covenant, but not the covenant itself. He should know, and I can't ignore it, so I have to accept it.

If I understand correctly, the confusion could be cleared up by merely removing "from the parcel's banlist", making it clear that it is not OK for a security system to ban users automatically, "period".

Yes, I did read the entire thread. I just did not understand the differences between the very clear statements by the Moles, and your issues with those statements.  As I had posted the "internet version" of the Security rules, it would have been helpful if someone posted the "official Covenant" here also.

ETA: I assumed - and still assume - your interpretation was, "if it's only disallowed to add users to the 'parcel banlist', then 'any other banlist' must still be allowed". 

Edited August 9, 2023 by Love Zhaoying

[Phil Deakins]

14 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

If I understand correctly, the confusion could be cleared up by merely removing "from the parcel's banlist", making it clear that it is not OK for a security system to ban users automatically, "period".

Yes, and that's what I've suggested should happen - change the wording in the covenant. It only needs that bit to be removed and it would be fully compliant with the 'spirit' of the covenant

  

14 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

ETA: I assumed - and still assume - your interpretation was, "if it's only disallowed to add users to the 'parcel banlist', then 'any other banlist' must still be allowed". 

It's not an interpretation. It follows from what the covenant actually says. If a street has a no-entry sign, it doesn't follow that nearby streets must also be no-entry.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Phil Deakins

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

15 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

If I understand correctly, the confusion could be cleared up by merely removing "from the parcel's banlist", making it clear that it is not OK for a security system to ban users automatically, "period".

Yes, and that's what I've suggested should happen - change the wording in the covenant. It only needs that bit to be removed and it would be fully compliant with the 'spirit' of the covenant

See how easy that was? All you had to do was answer my question; unfortunately I had to ask the "exactly right" question.  I am not certain everyone understands exactly what you meant by, "the 'spirit' of the covenant", but at least I do - supposedly!

Thank you.

[Phil Deakins]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

See how easy that was? All you had to do was answer my question; unfortunately I had to ask the "exactly right" question.  I am not certain everyone understands exactly what you meant by, "the 'spirit' of the covenant", but at least I do - supposedly!

Thank you.

Everyone who read the thread would know what "the spirit" means here. Abnor introduced it, and it was discussed at some length.

[Love Zhaoying]

5 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Everyone who read the thread would know what "the spirit" means here.

Obviously false - as I did read the thread.

Also, condescending and insulting. 

You CAN do better. I believe in you.

[Phil Deakins]

56 minutes ago, Abnor Mole said:

If the orb added them to the automatically blacklist it removes the require 15 second warning time, making it non-compliant.

Security devices issue several warnings during the 15 seconds (minimum). I assume that the supplied one does the same. If it doesn't, it's much worse that I thought lol. There is no question of removing the minimum time allowed. No question at all. So, unless the covenant is modified, "banning by using a blacklist is absolutely allowed according the to covenant".

On reflection, using a blacklist does not literally ban avatars. There is only one way to actually 'ban' an avatar, and that is in the land's ban list. If non-banning blacklists are not allowed, then the covenant does need an extra sentence in that section to make it clear, because "banning by using a blacklist is absolutely allowed according the to covenant" except it's not literally banning. Therefore blacklists should be allowed

However, for myself, I don't care either way now. Fionalein's suggestion is better, imo, and that's what I've adopted. The device that I'm upgrading already has the ability to add named avatars to the land's ban list in its menus, so I wouldn't now use a blacklist pseudo-ban for Bellisseria even if it was allowed, and I don't use one for anywhere else.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

  

9 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Obviously false - as I did read the thread.

Also, condescending and insulting. 

You CAN do better. I believe in you.

To be fair, the 'spirit' of the covenant has been discussed in enough posts in this short thread that it's fair to assume that anyone who read it, knows about it.

[Tary Allen]

What is the use of adding to a ban list automatically?

I'm genuinely curious, if I don't know who the avatar is how do I know it is an obnoxious one, or just someone passing by that decided briefly to wander in the garden?

 

[Nika Talaj]

6 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

Bellisseria home parcels are not very big, and a 'visitor' staying for the whole 15 seconds (minimum), through the several warnings s/he receives during it, shows a good indication of intent. It is not innocent. S/he may not be up to anything nefarious, but s/he is not innocent.

For sure!  That person whose attention is captured by my build or music stream, or who is wrestling with their plane's HUD, is DEFINITELY not innocent!  They are the embodiment of why AR-15s were invented!

Honestly, Phil, what a mindset.  At one point, my partner and I owned 10 Belli parcels.  Not once have we ever had a visitor who was "not innocent". 

Here is a concrete reason why using banlists in Belli, where as you know parcels are often cheek-by-jowl, is just plain BAD.

The banned avatar is standing quite a ways from the parcel she's banned on, and banlines are visible to her from where her camera is, even farther away.  If she were a neighbor or frequent passersby, she sees the uglies every time she comes anywhere near the parcel.  Why?  Probably because she stumbled across the parcel border once during a laggy moment.

In Belli, setting banlines for any avatar who is not a griefer is, in my book, harassment.

So congrats, Phil, you build devices whose purpose is to harass fellow residents.  Their use particularly targets users who are already having some trouble controlling their avatar - people who are new to SL, or whose equipment is borderline capable of running a viewer.  Great.

[Sid Nagy]

19 minutes ago, Nika Talaj said:

In Belli, setting banlines for any avatar who is not a griefer is, in my book, harassment.

A thousand times this.
And not only in Bellisseria IMHO.
That 15 second rule should become part of the TOS of SL.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Sid Nagy

[Phil Deakins]

1 hour ago, Tary Allen said:

What is the use of adding to a ban list automatically?

I'm genuinely curious, if I don't know who the avatar is how do I know it is an obnoxious one, or just someone passing by that decided briefly to wander in the garden?

I explained that earlier. Anyone who decided to briefly wander in the garden wouldn't choose to stay stay there through the whole 15 seconds (minimum) while receiving warnings to leave. Removal and banning for a while those who ignore the warnings to leave is normal.

But you need to ask LL about it. It is they who wrote the scripting language that includes a function to ban people.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

34 minutes ago, Nika Talaj said:

Honestly, Phil, what a mindset.  At one point, my partner and I owned 10 Belli parcels.  Not once have we ever had a visitor who was "not innocent". 

So?

34 minutes ago, Nika Talaj said:

So congrats, Phil, you build devices whose purpose is to harass fellow residents.  Their use particularly targets users who are already having some trouble controlling their avatar - people who are new to SL, or whose equipment is borderline capable of running a viewer.  Great.

Thank you for the congratulations. It's appreciated 

Security devices have been common in SL ever since I arrived in 2006. There's nothing new about them. Many people want them and many people don't. LL actually issues them in Bellisseria

I'm one of the people who doesn't use them. I'm happy when strangers turn up out of the blue. But, just because many of us don't want to use them, should those who do want them be denied? Of course not. You are like me. Neither of us want to use them. But, unlike me, your attitude appears to show that you think that other people's wants don't matter, and that the devices shouldn't exist. That's not very nice.
  

34 minutes ago, Nika Talaj said:

In Belli, setting banlines for any avatar who is not a griefer is, in my book, harassment.

You'd better complain the LL then, because Bellisseria tenants are allowed to ban people, regardless of whether or not they are griefers

P.S. You can show pics of all the banlines you like but it's nothing to do with me or my devices. My Bellisseria compliant devices have never caused banlines. There is nothing in them that can cause banlines, except that a user can choose to ban avatars by typing the names in, just like they can in the land's ban list. You are barking up the wrong tree, I'm afraid.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Phil Deakins

[Love Zhaoying]

33 minutes ago, Nika Talaj said:

If she were a neighbor or frequent passersby, she sees the uglies every time she comes anywhere near the parcel.  Why?  Probably because she stumbled across the parcel border once during a laggy moment.

...you can't turn off banlines so you don't see them? That's what I do..

[Gabriele Graves]

My opinion is that as long as people are observing the covenant, it is up to them to decide how to manage the land they have been allocated.  If LL feel very strongly about it they can remove the ban lines for specific bans as well and/or ban all security devices.  People are free to petition LL for this.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Gabriele Graves

[Abnor Mole]

Hmm... I'm not sure if the "don't blame the player, blame the game" defense really works all that well in a world of 100% user generated content.

[Fay Starlight]

In the advance menu (at least in Firestorm) advanced>debug settings>showbanlines

You have the option to make it false (then that turns them off).

You can turn on advanced menu is preferences and then it will be a link at the very top of the brower.

  

 

[Gabriele Graves]

Or you could choose from the menu "World->Show More->Ban Lines"

[Teresa Firelight]

hey folks, lets not pick on Phil. He is not a Belli resident and actually started this thread so that he could learn how to be compliant with Belli rules.

I have trouble seeing his point of view cuz I dont see the need for security systems in Belli. But there are people who feel the need for them, and Phil was trying to be belli-compliant or he wouldnt have started this thread.

We dont want to put a bad taste in his mouth and make him feel less motivated to be belli compliant.

[Nika Talaj]

2 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

...you can't turn off banlines so you don't see them? That's what I do..

You can, of course, but they are on by default.  I leave them on so I know if I've offended anyone.  I think there are a lot of users, particularly newbies, who don't even know they can be turned off.

I had a neighbor who perhaps was using an older device that scanned in a circle.  She put me on her ban list, must have picked me up when I was drowsing in my hammock on that side of my property.  I sent her a nice note, waited a week, no change.  So I put her on MY ban list, and she moved. No idea if that was a coincidence.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Nika Talaj said:

I leave them on so I know if I've offended anyone.

My logic for leaving them turned off:  If any parcel near me at "home" has them turned on, I would have to look at them all the time. With them turned off, I don't even think about it.  (This is Mainland, without many direct neighbors.)

[Gabriele Graves]

2 hours ago, Abnor Mole said:

Hmm... I'm not sure if the "don't blame the player, blame the game" defense really works all that well in a world of 100% user generated content.

I'm not even sure that Bellisseria qualifies as 100% user generated content.

[Love Zhaoying]

26 minutes ago, Teresa Firelight said:

hey folks, lets not pick on Phil. He is not a Belli resident and actually started this thread so that he could learn how to be compliant with Belli rules.

I have trouble seeing his point of view cuz I dont see the need for security systems in Belli. But there are people who feel the need for them, and Phil was trying to be belli-compliant or he wouldnt have started this thread.

We dont want to put a bad taste in his mouth and make him feel less motivated to be belli compliant.

But..but..Phil is picking on everyone else by being argumentative!

[diamond Marchant]

I have learned things from this thread and find it very helpful to get different points of view. Like many who have posted here, I do not use a security device anywhere and have no security issues. My primary encounter with security devices is when flying and I find 15 seconds to be a reasonable amount of time to cross a Belli parcel. On mainland, I always attempt to fly over protected water or follow a vetted flight plan. In general, I believe open skies and protected waters are fundamental to this game-not-a-game.

My only actual encounter with a griefer in years was yesterday. A day one avatar (who I did not clock as wearing Senra) repeatedly boarded my sailboat while underway. I responded by unseating him, repeatedly. Eventually he gave up.