Bellisseria and the Land Ban List

[UnilWay SpiritWeaver]

5 hours ago, Teresa Firelight said:

A Banline Alternate Solution

When I had a fantasy region home, I had a couple for neighbors who did not want anyone to visit their place. And they found a very creative way to keep people from accidentally wandering onto it... they had 4 invisiprim walls surrounding their parcel that you would run into if you accidentally stepped onto their parcel. It kept people out.

I believe you can even script this to collision detect and go phantom when an approved avatar hits it. I know I've put that on doors before that had weird bounding boxes so had to go phantom to be able to walk through them properly...

And since invisiprim's don't really exist anymore. Just set up a mesh box that is a convex hull, using the default transparent texture set to alpha mask 255 (alpha mask 255 rather than alpha blend so it won't cause weird alpha layering issues). Unlike an invisiprim people will still be able to see inside - but they can't walk in, and vehicles and such harmlessly bounce off of it (I think this old issue of banlines was fixed though right?).

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by UnilWay SpiritWeaver

[UnilWay SpiritWeaver]

On 8/14/2023 at 11:12 AM, UnilWay SpiritWeaver said:

That said, I AR'd that parcel when it's auto-ban got my alt, and the plot next to it that had some massive build overlapping the other plots (which is actually how I ended up in the neighbor's plot to begin with). I wouldn't be a "busy body" caring over other people's plots except that massive build was right there across a small gap from the spot I -was- thinking of going P+ to get. 

All this talk about automated bans. But I just checked and the plot I AR'd late Sunday or early Monday (I forget how long before the above post I did the AR) still has the 5-second autoban going.

 

[Matthieu Quander]

3 hours ago, Hunny Bunny said:

Recognizing the diversity of preferences and sensitivities is of utmost importance. Assuming that individuals uncomfortable with strangers on their land are solely dealing with mental health issues oversimplifies the matter and disregards the wide array of emotions and viewpoints.

Individuals have varying levels of comfort, life experiences, and reasons for desiring privacy and control over their virtual spaces. Some may have been affected by negative past interactions, resulting in unease, while others may simply value their personal space and seek to create a specific ambiance. These inclinations deserve respect without automatically linking them to mental health concerns.

Approaching such discussions with empathy, understanding, and an open mind is crucial, acknowledging that people's choices are influenced by a multitude of factors. Instead of rushing to assumptions, engaging in productive dialogues that encompass diverse viewpoints leads to a more comprehensive understanding of residents' needs and preferences.

In cases where someone has a handicap or disability that makes it challenging to handle certain tasks manually, an automated process can provide valuable assistance. Automated processes offer convenience, efficiency, and accessibility, thereby facilitating individuals with disabilities in managing their online interactions and experiences.

For instance, if someone has a condition affecting their ability to use a computer mouse or keyboard effectively, an automated process could enable them to set specific rules or parameters for managing interactions on their virtual property, eliminating the need for constant manual intervention.

It's vital for platforms and communities to consider the diverse needs of their users and offer options that accommodate various abilities and preferences. Striking a balance between automation, user control, and flexibility is key to ensuring an inclusive and accessible environment for all residents, regardless of their circumstances.

I don't disagree with any of this.  My comment about mental health was not intended to imply that that was the only challenge out there.  It was meant as a response to the person who is dealing with the paralyzing impact of anxiety.  Suffering from this myself to the extent I have had to significantly limit my time in SL, and ironically posting in the forums, I'm not at all unsympathetic. 

I was simply making the argument that there are land options outside of Bellisseria that allow for full control, including automatic insta-banning.  If my anxiety had the same triggers, I would likely spend my land allowance on a mainland parcel and live in a skybox with a fully automated security device.  

Lest we forget that SL is a business, there has to be a practical balance between building in world communities that are welcoming and inclusive to all, and accounting for every possible need.  

 

[diamond Marchant]

2 hours ago, Hunny Bunny said:

Implying that possessing the capacity to participate in SL equates to the ability to manually ban is akin to suggesting that a person in a wheelchair needing access to an upper floor doesn't require an elevator because they can manage without it.

Hardly. A better analogy would be to say that a person who can drink a glass of water might also be able to drink a glass of tea. Second Life is complicated. Assuming that a person is using a human/computer interface technology appropriate to their needs (whatever that is) and has successfully participated in signing up, gotten a first avatar, learned how to walk/fly/teleport, acquired Lindens, purchased items, signed up for Premium, acquired a Linden Home, etc....   it does not seem likely that the UI challenge of manually banning another resident would present a novel challenge. A more significant challenge might be the learning curve... discovering that banning is possible and how to do it. This challenge is present in just about everything associated with SL. Second life is not easy.

On a personal note, I was born with strabismus (crossed eyes), which was later corrected cosmetically via surgery but too late to allow me to have binocular fusion.... depth perception. If I were in a virtual world using a VR headset and the UI required depth perception (such as showing the left eye a bird cage and the right eye a bird and expecting me to see a bird in a cage), I would be unable to operate using that UI. It is reasonable to have an expectation of an alternate UI that did not depend on depth perception. The point is that I do appreciate that difficult human factors exist for some people.

Edited August 17, 2023 by diamond Marchant

[Rowan Amore]

7 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

I disagree. Anyone who goes straight back after being removed has a negative intent. It may not be malicious (a word that I didn't use), but it is negative intent, and nobody anywhere would tolerate it if they didn't have to.

I actually had a new person do this once.  I was home and she walked into my parcel, the orb gave a warning but I ejected her manually since I was getting dressed.  She came back 2 more times.  I finally messaged her as I saw she was new and asked if she needed help with something.  She didn't understand why something kept tossing her out when she just wanted to look inside the cute cottage.  I explained that most homes she'll see in SL are privately owned.  She wasn't aware of that and apologized.

No harm, no foul, no bad intent.

[Phil Deakins]

5 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

No harm, no foul, no bad intent.

She would have fine if she hadn't been able to go straight back in again.

[Teresa Firelight]

4 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

She would have fine if she hadn't been able to go straight back in again.

I disagree. I work with new people regularly as an SL mentor and also at the firestorm gateway. A new person would not understand being banned at all, and might think they are being targeted. New people dont know the "rules" of this "new game."

The way Rowan handled it was perfect. The new resident learned something and did not feel personally targeted. In fact, she most likely felt helped because of Rowan's gracious IM.

[Teresa Firelight]

13 hours ago, UnilWay SpiritWeaver said:

I believe you can even script this to collision detect and go phantom when an approved avatar hits it. I know I've put that on doors before that had weird bounding boxes so had to go phantom to be able to walk through them properly...

And since invisiprim's don't really exist anymore. Just set up a mesh box that is a convex hull, using the default transparent texture set to alpha mask 255 (alpha mask 255 rather than alpha blend so it won't cause weird alpha layering issues). Unlike an invisiprim people will still be able to see inside - but they can't walk in, and vehicles and such harmlessly bounce off of it (I think this old issue of banlines was fixed though right?).

 

 

 

When I said Invisiprim, I actually meant a regular prim with an alpha texture (e.g transparent). I did not know there was a previous special type of object that no longer exists. I was not trying to refer to that... and if you hadn't said something, I would not have known that I had inadvertently misspoke.

In this case, they used 4 prims linked together and set to convex hull (so LI was only 2). Perhaps that was to control the thickness of these invisible  barrier walls, because they would have been rather thick on a 32x32 M box where max hollow is 95%.

BTW. your idea of scripting it it to go phantom when certain avatars (on an "approved list") collide with it is quite cleaver and very doable. I am only an intermediate level scripter, but I think I could write that one myself.

Someone really ought to make and market a "smart invisible wall" to protect one's property at ground level. I think there might be a market for this type of product, especially in Bellisseria.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Teresa Firelight
add missing "n" to known

[Fionalein]

5 minutes ago, Teresa Firelight said:

I did not know there was a previous special type of object that no longer exists.

Oh they still exist - they still work, they just refuse to work with ALM on (Possibly with PBR neither)

[Nya Jules]

On 8/10/2023 at 12:51 AM, elleevelyn said:

Linden have addressed this by adding a new option to the viewer: menu World \ Show \ Banlines on Collision

dets here:

https://releasenotes.secondlife.com/viewer/6.6.14.581101.html

I'm happy beyond imagination that my feature request https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/BUG-233704 made it eventually into the viewer, and that (I've just tried it out) it's also enabled by default. This is such a big positive change to me.

I've never needed to ban someone on my mainland (non Belli) homes. In the very few instances when someone entered my parcel while I was in my home, to explicitly engage me, I told them politely that it's not acceptable to just walk into someone's home, and people just.. left.

That said, I can understand that there may be situations, like when someone is engaging in adult activities in their homes, that they don't want someone there even for a brief moment.

[Phil Deakins]

1 hour ago, Nya Jules said:

I'm happy beyond imagination that my feature request https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/BUG-233704 made it eventually into the viewer, and that (I've just tried it out) it's also enabled by default. This is such a big positive change to me.

Well done, Nya! It's an excellent change.

I'd noticed something odd about banlines that weren't showing when I expected them to, and now i know why. Well done!

[Abnor Mole]

1 hour ago, Teresa Firelight said:

When I said Invisiprim, I actually meant a regular prim with an alpha texture (e.g transparent). I did not know there was a previous special type of object that no longer exists. I was not trying to refer to that... and if you hadn't said something, I would not have known that I had inadvertently misspoke.

In this case, they used 4 prims linked together and set to convex hull (so LI was only 2). Perhaps that was to control the thickness of these invisible  barrier walls, because they would have been rather thick on a 32x32 M box where max hollow is 95%.

BTW. your idea of scripting it it to go phantom when certain avatars (on an "approved list") collide with it is quite cleaver and very doable. I am only an intermediate level scripter, but I think I could write that one myself.

Someone really ought to make and market a "smart invisible wall" to protect one's property at ground level. I think there might be a market for this type of product, especially in Bellisseria.

I was hoping this idea would die a natural death but I see it's will not. We've had people do this in Bellisseria and they get found when someone complains about an invisible barrier and not understanding what is happening... and they get returned for being a wall higher than 4m. What you're talking about is a ban line that is not technically a ban line the same way automatic parcel blacklist ban is not technically a parcel ban. 

[Love Zhaoying]

31 minutes ago, Abnor Mole said:

What you're talking about is a ban line that is not technically a ban line the same way automatic parcel blacklist ban is not technically a parcel ban. 

Thank you for explaining this! I think this is a great example of where the "spirit of the covenant" is fairly obvious.

[Hunny Bunny]

3 hours ago, Nya Jules said:

That said, I can understand that there may be situations, like when someone is engaging in adult activities in their homes, that they don't want someone there even for a brief moment.

The current policy approach in Bellisseria seems to allow for adult activities in private spaces, but this approach potentially compromises the essential privacy that many individuals require for such interactions. This situation prompts questions about whether there might be an underlying intention to subtly encourage individuals seeking adult activities to leave Bellisseria in favor of the mainland. This shift could lead to them maintaining a premium subscription without the significant benefit of a Bellisseria house, adding an extra layer of complexity to the situation. Alternatively, if they choose to move to private islands, it could be seen as a reversal of the impact on landlords that emerged from the creation of Bellisseria.

[UnilWay SpiritWeaver]

5 hours ago, Teresa Firelight said:

When I said Invisiprim, I actually meant a regular prim with an alpha texture (e.g transparent). I did not know there was a previous special type of object that no longer exists. I was not trying to refer to that... and if you hadn't said something, I would not have known that I had inadvertently misspoke.

No problems.

Did you figure out what those used to be? (Do they still work if people don't have advanced lighting on or were they fully officially broken as I had thought they were?)

Invisiprims used to make certain things inside of them invisible. There was a famous case of them being used on Nautilus to hide the water in a dry dock build that was built by a mole.

(logging in to go find that place...)

Here:

http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Nautilus - Shalim/232/224/23

And yeah, as @Fionalein noted they do still work. Turn off advanced lighting to see what they do.

[Abnor Mole]

The only underlying intention to subtly encourage individuals to be less jerky to their fellow residents out of fear. Fear of roving gangs of griefers, fear of anyone they don't know, fear of someone camming into their bedroom and reporting them...

Edited August 17, 2023 by Abnor Mole

[Love Zhaoying]

12 minutes ago, Abnor Mole said:

The only underlying intention to subtly encourage individuals to be less dicky to their fellow residents out of fear. Fear of roving gangs of griefers, fear of anyone they don't know, fear of someone camming into their bedroom and reporting them...

There's always room for improvement here, even if I were to quote you stopping at the d-word!!

Your efforts make a difference!

[Nika Talaj]

8 hours ago, Nya Jules said:

That said, I can understand that there may be situations, like when someone is engaging in adult activities in their homes, that they don't want someone there even for a brief moment.

First, great JIRA, thanks!

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Nika Talaj

[UnilWay SpiritWeaver]

7 hours ago, Teresa Firelight said:

BTW. your idea of scripting it it to go phantom when certain avatars (on an "approved list") collide with it is quite cleaver and very doable. I am only an intermediate level scripter, but I think I could write that one myself.

 

Only time I've ever actually used the invisible box idea is with high altitude skyboxes.

Making them invisible lets advanced lighting work - which was my real original reason for 'removing the texture' that sky boxes I'd buy were often wrapped in.

The best way to do it is a single mesh prim set to prim. You can exist inside of that as long as it's not convex hull.

If you do it at ground somewhere on mainland - I'd recommend constraining it well away from the parcel edge. Just wrap the building you're inside of and use that collision detection to make it phantom as needed. In this case a single mesh prim probably would NOT work.

It looks like they don't want us doing that in Belli. For Belli if you really want privacy just teleport routing set to 'blocked' will keep active snoopers out without messing with anyone wandering belli locally, and even the TPers will just find themselves landing right next to your parcel as if the TP had worked.

 

I still have one of these on a tiny skybox parcel on Zindra. This is why my main just has a camper for a Linden Home (though my main is now P+, I just used the extra 1000m to hold a plot I've been trying to sell...).
- For someone who really needs privacy I recommend buying a plot in a very badly carved Zindra sim and putting up a skybox. Nobody wants to wander into that sim because the plots are all carved up and all your neighbors are 'weirdos' (rez some weird stuff at ground too so you too are a weirdo people want to avoid). Then put up a little skybox apartment and hide out in it. My neighbor is one of those 'AFK stuff and things' places so yeah - people avoid the region my Zindra skybox is in.

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by UnilWay SpiritWeaver

[Hunny Bunny]

While fostering a sense of community and interaction is important, it's also crucial to respect individual preferences and boundaries. Encouraging interaction and creating opportunities for engagement is positive, but it's not appropriate to force people into interactions that make them uncomfortable or violate their privacy. People have diverse communication styles, social preferences, and comfort zones, and these should be respected.

Balancing community-building efforts with individual autonomy is essential. Instead of forcing interactions, it's often more effective to create an environment where people feel comfortable and willing to engage voluntarily. Providing various platforms for communication, offering events, and facilitating opportunities for socializing can help create a positive and inclusive atmosphere without resorting to coercion.

[Nika Talaj]

Coercion?  Forcing interactions? Please be more explicit, I have no idea what you're referring to.

ETA: If you're thinking of the 15 second grace period before evictions by Belli security devices, I think that's a far cry from "forcing interactions".

Edited August 17, 2023 by Nika Talaj

[Phil Deakins]

1 hour ago, Nika Talaj said:

Let's remember where this thread started: the OP (who is not alone in this) suffers from social anxiety.

I don't know what gave you that idea, but it's absolutely untrue. Perhaps you've got the threads mixed up. A quick read of the first post will put you straight.

Invisiprims were often used to hide traffic bots high in the sky. That was when the search result rankings were solely on traffic counts. It was the only factor for ranking them. They could be listed alphabetically buts that's not ranking them.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Phil Deakins

[Love Zhaoying]

22 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

2 hours ago, Nika Talaj said:

et's remember where this thread started: the OP (who is not alone in this) suffers from social anxiety.

I don't know what gave you that idea, but it's absolutely untrue.

I am glad to hear you do not suffer from social anxiety!

[belindacarson]

2 hours ago, Abnor Mole said:

The only underlying intention to subtly encourage individuals to be less jerky to their fellow residents out of fear. Fear of roving gangs of griefers, fear of anyone they don't know, fear of someone camming into their bedroom and reporting them...

trouble is, this actually happens, self appointed keyboard warriors like we have on the forums, who think they can claim the  moral right to report a couple, or a few individuals enjoying themselves in the privacy of their SL homes.  This does make the mind boggle Abnor.

[Gabriele Graves]

2 hours ago, Abnor Mole said:

The only underlying intention to subtly encourage individuals to be less jerky to their fellow residents out of fear. Fear of roving gangs of griefers, fear of anyone they don't know, fear of someone camming into their bedroom and reporting them...